Roswell explained? Potential NEW evidence!

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Roswell explained? Potential NEW evidence!

Postby Access Denied » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:19 pm

The following was written in February of last year by an associate of mine who wishes to remain unattributed…

The first and indeed canonical UFO incident (Roswell) has a known, if poorly publicized, point of origin which is both innocent and terrestrial. And no, I don't mean "Mogul". That is what the Balloons were, but that's not why the UFO craze started there.

Dr Albert Paddock Crary, one of the team of three people who were the first to set foot both on the north and south poles, one of the leaders of the IGY projects in the US, and after whom two Antarctic geological features (one mountain range and one major ice field) and part of McMurdo base are named, was also the field operations director for Project Mogul.

During the project, after one of the balloons landed in a field and while Dr Crary was on his way back from the recovery site, he was stopped in a New Mexico diner by a science reporter who knew him from his other work, who asked him what he was working on down here in NM. Dr Crary knew the reporter well, and jokingly answered "Flying Saucers", intending to pass along that it was classified and he could not talk about it.

The reporter he was talking to did, in fact, get the message that it was classified and he could not talk about it, and took it as the joking brush off that it was.

The reporter at the table behind him, however, who was new, hungry, impressionable, and knew nothing about science but read pulp science fiction a lot, saw a Professor in the company of a bunch of Army men talking about Flying Saucers and assumed it to be literally true.

When the first press report hit the papers two days later, Dr Crary went to the Mogul security officer and apologized, admitting he was the source. The security officer shrugged and stated that the General had already seen it, and that nobody would ever believe it, and it was a better cover story than anyone else had thought up. One press officer decided to play up that angle several days later. Shortly afterwards, everyone decided that it was creating a new wild public interest which was likely to actually accidentally uncover what Mogul really was all about, and they started trying to play it down. But it was already way too late.

Dr Crary and the reporter who he was talking to apparently exchanged some bemused letters over it later. It's documented in Dr Crary's still-unpublished diaries and memoirs as well.

Now, if Frank can ever convince his mother to publish them without taking that section out…


The Frank my associate is referring to is his former business partner Dr. Frank Crary, son of Dr. Albert Crary, Project MOGUL Field Operations Director. The following is a brief summary of Frank’s CV…

Dr. Crary is a planetary scientist concentrating in planetary magnetospheres and plasma physics, with additional experience in other planetary science, spacecraft engineering, and manned spaceflight missions engineering. He is a member of the science teams for the Galileo Jupiter mission and the Deep Space One experimental space probe. Frank has extensive publications in space and planetary science as well as in engineering topics related to Mars exploration.


The last time I inquired about this Frank and his mother (Dr. Crary’s widow) were still in disagreement over the publishing of his father’s memoirs. As I understand it the issue is related to exactly who will publish them.

I originally posted this on ATS about 6 months ago however it was deleted along with all my other posts. I’ve reviewed Dr. Crary’s journal published in the AF report and I believe I’ve narrowed down the date the incident in the diner most likely occurred but what I would really like to know and so far have been unable determine through my own research efforts is who the two reporters were. My associate doesn’t know and so far our attempts to elicit this information from Frank directly have been unsuccessful. Perhaps we will have to wait until his father’s memoirs are published.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Postby ryguy » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:46 pm

Access Denied wrote:I’ve reviewed Dr. Crary’s journal published in the AF report and I believe I’ve narrowed down the date the incident in the diner most likely occurred but what I would really like to know and so far have been unable determine through my own research efforts is who the two reporters were. My associate doesn’t know and so far our attempts to elicit this information from Frank directly have been unsuccessful. Perhaps we will have to wait until his father’s memoirs are published.


First of all - thanks for posting. It certainly is interesting.

You stated you've ready his journal published in the AF report. You're referring to the AF Roswell Report here? And obviously his entire journal wasn't published otherwise the reporters name would be known - you mentioned above that his bemused exchanges with the reporter are detailed in his journal - unless the reporter wasn't named in the journal of course. Definitely fascinating.

Do you know the reasons they do not wish to publish the journal, other than concerns where to publish it? Do they hope to somehow generate some income from it, or are they just concerned about whether or not it will be handled truthfully? Also - you mentioned you've ascertained the date and location of the event, can you share the details and how you were able to determine that with some certainty?

Thanks again for posting this - if anything, it's certainly an interesting new thread of research.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:22 pm

while it very well may be that roswellians are simply a cargo cult, it must be remembered that all cargo cults have a genesis in reality, i.e. a crash, a burnt GI, and a mother-load of dented cargo. in the case of Roswell we have, no contention here, a crash. the questions surround the burnt and the dented cargo. i'm not, by nature, a jon frumist; i respect the anti-frumistas. carry on.
http://enzo.gen.nz/jonfrum/

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Access Denied » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:13 am

ryguy wrote:You stated you've read his journal published in the AF report. You're referring to the AF Roswell Report here? And obviously his entire journal wasn't published otherwise the reporters name would be known - you mentioned above that his bemused exchanges with the reporter are detailed in his journal - unless the reporter wasn't named in the journal of course.

Right, the only journal I’ve seen is the one in the AF Report (Attachment 17) that deals specifically with his day-to-day Project MOGUL related activities.

ryguy wrote:Do you know the reasons they do not wish to publish the journal, other than concerns where to publish it? Do they hope to somehow generate some income from it, or are they just concerned about whether or not it will be handled truthfully?

That’s a good question and unfortunately I can only speculate on what the disagreement is at this point but if I had to guess, I would guess that Frank (being a scientist) is concerned about posterity and getting it right and perhaps his mother is not. The thing is Dr. Crary’s involvement in Project MOGUL is really only a footnote in comparison to his extensive career as an artic pioneer and explorer which is of much greater historical significance and interest I would imagine…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_P._Crary

Also, I imagine it might be somewhat of an embarrassment if indeed he was the source of all the (initial) confusion surrounding Roswell?

ryguy wrote:Also - you mentioned you've ascertained the date and location of the event, can you share the details and how you were able to determine that with some certainty?

Sure, I believe the date was July 3rd in conjunction with MOGUL Balloon Flight #8 based on this entry in his journal…

On Thursday morning 3 July, a cluster of GM plastic balloons sent up for V2 recording but V2 was not fired. No shots fired. Balloons up for some time. No recordings from Roswell as pibal showed no W winds. Balloons picked up by radar WL and hunted by Nanjak C-45. Located on Tularosa Range by air. Out pm with several NYU by weapon carrier but we never located it. Rocket postponed until 730 Thursday night but at last minute before balloon went up, V2 was called off on account of accident at White Sands. Sent up cluster balloons with dummy load.

This seems to correlate pretty well with the somewhat ambiguous timing given. This would mean the date “the first press report hit the papers two days later” (concerning what incident I’m not exactly sure) was July 5th (a Saturday) and July 8th when the famous RDR article hit the press would be "several days later” as noted.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:41 am

Hi AD,

Thank you for posting Dr. Crary’s Story. :)

The corroboration of Dr. Crary’s “recovery” account and Mogul / NYU #8 to the July 3rd time frame appears to conflict with Charles B. Moore’s description of the flights as:


NYU #4 – June 4th 1947 (a test flight containing neoprene – not polyethylene – balloons that was lost by the tracking B-17 over Arabella NM, and supposedly came to rest @20 miles to the northeast on Foster’s ranch. It was the only Mogul-related balloon train to be officially unaccounted for, according to Charles Moore (?).)

NYU #5 – July 5th 1947 (First “operational” flight with polyethylene lifter balloons. Recovered near Roswell.)

NYU #6 – July 7th 1947 (Recovered SW of Alamogordo.)


I can see that NYU personnel were noted to have accompanied Dr. Crary to the (attempted) recovery of the V2-related plastic (polyethylene) balloons, but wonder if this incident was truly related to formal NYU / MOGUL operations? To me, this description sounds more like a simple “Weather” flight - intended to “sound” the winds-aloft for a planned rocket launch (?).

On the other hand, perhaps Dr. Crary was present at the recovery of #5 near Roswell (hence his misinterpreted “brush” with the Press in a local diner)? Such an association would still – hypothetically – leave him with another day (or two) of allowance before the public “flying saucer” frenzy broke out (?)


To me, it seems entirely believable that Dr. Crary would subsequently confess his assumed “guilt” to the MOGUL security officer – unable to realize that Colonel Blanchard at RAAF was the true, original, source of the “flying disc” dispatch that had titillated the Press to distraction.

Perhaps Dr. Crary’s serendipitous “flying saucers” answer inadvertently accelerated Blanchard’s “flying disc” conflagration after it was already kindled, but it also seems likely (to me) that parties other than Dr. Crary (Blanchard? Marcel? Arnold? The Press?) already had “flying saucers” imprinted on their minds during early July of 1947, too (?).


Dr Crary’s story is very interesting (IMO), but – in light of established facts – (most likely) only a bizarre coincidence, perhaps?


The only Press interest in the Foster Ranch incident that I am aware of (and I could be wrong?) – PRIOR to Blanchard’s press release – was Frank Joyce’s private telephone interview of Brazel (at Wilcox’s office) on July 6th. Joyce’s boss, Walt Whitimore Jr., was still trying to corroborate Brazel’s story when Blanchard officially “scooped” him on July 8th (I think?).


Just my thoughts,

Serpentime

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

> Just for the record, I am currently holding in my hands a Xeroxed copy of a two-page UFO report secured from CIA following an FOIA lawsuit.

According to the account:

On April 24th 1949, four navy enlisted men from White Sands Proving Ground (named in the report) and their General Mills project supervisor sighted a “rapidly moving” object while tracking a balloon flight through a theodolite (tracking telescope). The location was given as 3 miles north of Arrey, New Mexico, with ideal visibility in a cloudless sky.

The author writes:

We had released a 350 gram balloon at about 1020 MST and were following it with a standard ML-47 (David White) Theodolite. After the 1030 reading, Davidson took over the theodolite, and Akers and I looked up to find the balloon with the naked eye. We thought we had the balloon when we saw a whitish spherical object right along the direction the theodolite (45’ elevation and 210’ azimuth) was pointing. The object was drifting east rapidly (5’/sec, as estimated by stopwatch and width of fingers) but we had thought to encounter similar winds on the balloon. When the difference in angle between the theodolite and supposed balloon became apparent, I took over the theodolite and found the true balloon still there, whereupon I abandoned it and picked up the object after it came out of the sun. (The computed bearing of the sun was 127’ azimuth and elevation 60’) The object was moving too fast to crank the theodolite around, therefore one of the men pointed the theodolite and I looked.

The object was ellipsoid about 2 ½ : 1 slenderness ratio, length about .02’ subtended angle, and white in color, except for a light yellow of one side as though it were in shadow. I could not get a hard focus on the object due to the speed at which the angles changed. Therefore, I saw no good detail at all.

The azimuth angle continued to decrease as the object continued on a north heading, growing smaller in size. At around 20’ – 25’ Azimuth, the Azimuth held constant and the elevation angle began increasing from the 25’ minimum to about 29’. The object then apparently disappeared due to distance after a total time of observation of about 60 seconds.

The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.

We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore, this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

Information is desired if this was some new or experimental aircraft, or for any explanation whatsoever.


Note:

No clouds in sky, no haze.
No noise, very quiet in area (no cars, planes, or other engines running)
No trail, no exhaust visible.
No odor


{Emphasis added}

On the surface, this would appear to be an outstanding – scientifically described; complete with theodolite instrument data – report of a genuinely unidentified flying object observed operating over restricted military facilities in the American southwest.

The ONI analyst who wrote up the report states:

2. …statement is forwarded as significant because of the detailed theodolite tracking data it contains and because the object’s variation of azimuth and elevation might indicate some degree of controlled flight.

3. The observer is known to the Special Devices Center as a graduate mechanical engineer with an Air Force captaincy in meteorology. …prior to his employment by General Mills, headed the New York University constant level balloon research program for the Air Force, and can be considered to be a competent, mature, and highly experienced observer.


{Emphasis added}

So who WAS this ”competent, mature, and highly experienced” professional observer, who clearly understood and reported the unmistakable difference between a balloon and an Unidentified Flying Object?

Who WAS this General Mills balloon expert that expressed no hesitation to report a UFO (and commit his name to paper) when he had plainly observed one through a scientific instrument?


~ Why, none other then CHARLES B. MOORE, himself – the star witness of SAF/AAZ’s 1994 Roswell debunking report… :shock:


Say what you will, but Mr. “most likely source of what the rancher found” also seems to know his “flying saucers” when he sees them. :shock: And – more importantly – he also knows that NOT ALL OF THEM are balloons. LOL


Else wise, both Charles Moore and USAF have an oddly short (and selective?) memory. ;)



TRUE “disclosure”, anyone?


:)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Max » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:04 pm

Great post, Serpentine. Those naive or looking to debunk often overlook details such as what you have posted. Skipping puzzle pieces before describing the big picture often means: "Agenda".
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby ryguy » Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:45 pm

Serpentime wrote:Else wise, both Charles Moore and USAF have an oddly short (and selective?) memory. ;)


LOL....fantastic post! Thanks for the "additional" info. I did a quick poke around online and there's certainly quite the controversy regarding Moore isn't there? (Between both Roswell believers and skeptics that is). Same goes for just about every other witness/testimony on the subject out there.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:39 pm

amazing research, serp. thanks!

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Access Denied » Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:50 am

First a minor correction: (in case anyone is paying attention)

Access Denied wrote:Right, the only journal I’ve seen is the one in the AF Report (Attachment 17) that deals specifically with his day-to-day Project MOGUL related activities.

Actually it’s Appendix 17 to the “Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings” by Lt. James McAndrew which itself is Attachment 32 to the AF Report.

Now a response to Serpentime’s post:

Serpentime wrote:The corroboration of Dr. Crary’s “recovery” account and Mogul / NYU #8 to the July 3rd time frame appears to conflict with Charles B. Moore’s description of the flights as:

I can see why you would think that but…

Serpentime wrote:NYU #4 – June 4th 1947 (a test flight containing neoprene – not polyethylene – balloons that was lost by the tracking B-17 over Arabella NM, and supposedly came to rest @20 miles to the northeast on Foster’s ranch. It was the only Mogul-related balloon train to be officially unaccounted for, according to Charles Moore (?).)

It wasn’t recovered by NYU however I'm pretty sure it was recovered by Brazel and the 509th at RAAF. :)

According to Dr. Crary’s journal NYU #7 wasn’t recovered either (it was stolen).

Serpentime wrote:NYU #5 – July 5th 1947 (First “operational” flight with polyethylene lifter balloons. Recovered near Roswell.)

NYU #6 – July 7th 1947 (Recovered SW of Alamogordo.)

These last two dates are wrong according to “Table No. 7, Summary of NYU Constant-Level Balloon Flights” (Attachment 27 to the AF Report) and “New York University, Technical Report No. 1, Constant Level Balloon” (Attachment 13 to Lt. McAndrew’s “Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings”). They should be June not July.

Where did you get these dates (your source)? Are you saying those are the dates according C.B. Moore? If so, so what? The topic at hand has nothing to do with C.B. Moore.

Serpentime wrote:I can see that NYU personnel were noted to have accompanied Dr. Crary to the (attempted) recovery of the V2-related plastic (polyethylene) balloons, but wonder if this incident was truly related to formal NYU / MOGUL operations? To me, this description sounds more like a simple “Weather” flight - intended to “sound” the winds-aloft for a planned rocket launch (?).

NYU Flight #8 was definitely a formal NYU/MOGUL operation. It was included in the aforementioned “Summary of NYU Constant-Level Balloon Flights” AND “New York University, Technical Report No. 1, Constant Level Balloon” (Attachment 13 to Lt. McAndrew’s “Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings”) in the AF report. Please refer to the following figures FMI…

Fig. 39 Train assembly, flight 8. (General Mills Cluster)
Fig. 40 Trajectory, flight 8
Fig. 41 Height-time curve, flight 8

(I don’t know how to post pictures here)

Serpentime wrote:On the other hand, perhaps Dr. Crary was present at the recovery of #5 near Roswell (hence his misinterpreted “brush” with the Press in a local diner)? Such an association would still – hypothetically – leave him with another day (or two) of allowance before the public “flying saucer” frenzy broke out (?)

Assuming my source’s timeline is correct, #5 on June 5th would be WAY too soon. Besides, the “frenzy” didn’t really begin until after Kenneth Arnold’s sighting on June 24th which wasn’t reported nationwide until June 26th IIRC. Also, nobody said the diner had to be in Roswell. In the case of NYU #8 it could be anywhere between the Tularosa Range (a frequent destination for Dr. Crary BTW) and Alamogordo.

Serpentime wrote:To me, it seems entirely believable that Dr. Crary would subsequently confess his assumed “guilt” to the MOGUL security officer – unable to realize that Colonel Blanchard at RAAF was the true, original, source of the “flying disc” dispatch that had titillated the Press to distraction.

Only problem is there is no undisputable evidence that Blanchard was the source of (or approved or wrote) the press release or the word “Flying Saucer” used in the headline of RDR. In fact no copy of the alleged “official press release” has ever been found and Haut can’t seem to give a straight answer (has changed his story several times)…

http://roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/hautstory.htm

Now we have the OMNI article, "The Truth About Roswell", where Dave Sobel questioned Walter Haut about who wrote the article:

"When Blanchard talked to you about what to say, did he use the words 'flying saucer?"' I asked. "Did he seem to be frightened?"

[...]

"I do not remember the minute details," Haut told me. "I feel that I've had a pretty full life, and how the colonel passed that information on to me I cannot honestly tell you. I don't know whether he called me on the phone and said, `Haut, I want you to put out a press release and hand deliver it to the local news media. Here's what I want in it. "Or," Haut continued, "the adjutant might have called and said, `Haut, the old man's got a press release he wants you to pick up and take it around town."'

When I pressed Haut about the authorship of the release, he answered frankly: "I cannot honestly remember whether I wrote it, whether he had given me the information and told me `This is what I want in it.' It was not that big a production at that time, in my mind."

"Well, there were quite a few reports of flying saucers at that time," Haut reminded me. "I had a multitude of hats I wore. I had all kinds of things to do. I asked my wife, when all this [the renewed interest in Roswell in the mid 1980s] started, `Do you remember me coming home and saying anything about it?"' Her reply, he recalled, was simply no."

Tim Printy also has an excellent (IMO) analysis of this here…

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/RAAF.html

So, who actually wrote the press release is questionable. The authors could have included numerous people and Jesse Marcel himself may have had a hand in it’s fabrication. Even more interesting is Jesse’s description of Walter Haut as "an eager beaver PIO who took it upon himself to call the AP on this thing" (Berlitz and Moore 74). Marcel also implied that Haut jumped the gun and was not authorized to make the press release. There is evidence that the release was not even in any written form and Haut just told people over the phone. According to George Walsh of radio KSWS, Haut called him over the phone and then dictated the text to him. He never saw any formal press release and there are no copies of the actual press release in existence.


Serpentime wrote:Perhaps Dr. Crary’s serendipitous “flying saucers” answer inadvertently accelerated Blanchard’s “flying disc” conflagration after it was already kindled, but it also seems likely (to me) that parties other than Dr. Crary (Blanchard? Marcel? Arnold? The Press?) already had “flying saucers” imprinted on their minds during early July of 1947, too (?).

True but the important distinction here IMO is Dr. Crary may have inadvertently caused “flying saucers” to be “officially” associated with the military whereas they hadn’t been (excluding some speculation in the press re: Arnold’s sighting perhaps) prior to this incident IIRC. The implication here is that this may be why (with or without additional input from Lt. Haut?) whoever wrote the RDR headline used the term “flying saucer” in conjunction with a “disc” recovered by the military.

Serpentime wrote:Dr Crary’s story is very interesting (IMO), but – in light of established facts – (most likely) only a bizarre coincidence, perhaps?

Perhaps but it’s the best explanation I’ve seen so far IMO… and I’ve seen a lot of “explanations” over the years that don’t hold water under close scrutiny.

The only Press interest in the Foster Ranch incident that I am aware of (and I could be wrong?) – PRIOR to Blanchard’s press release – was Frank Joyce’s private telephone interview of Brazel (at Wilcox’s office) on July 6th. Joyce’s boss, Walt Whitimore Jr., was still trying to corroborate Brazel’s story when Blanchard officially “scooped” him on July 8th (I think?).

I know this is a bone of contention with many researchers but according to Brazel he came into town on Monday, July 7th…

Interview with Mac Brazel
Roswell Daily Chronicle, July 9, 1947
http://roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/brazel.htm

At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and he did not pay much attention to it. But he did remark about what he had seen and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon, and a daughter Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and gathered up quite a bit of the debris.

The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one of these.

Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk.

Note also that Brazel says he “heard about the flying disks” on July 5th! This correlates with my source’s timeline if July 3rd is the date of the incident in the diner as I proposed. The question is exactly what did he hear and from where? IIRC Brazel said he heard something on the radio about a reward being offered but I can’t seem to find where I read that at the moment…

Serpentime wrote:Say what you will, but Mr. “most likely source of what the rancher found” also seems to know his “flying saucers” when he sees them. And – more importantly – he also knows that NOT ALL OF THEM are balloons. LOL

I don’t get this. Why do the “true believers” always bring up the fact that C.B. Moore saw a UFO two years later? So what? Doesn’t mean it was an alien spaceship and whoever told you ALL UFO reports are balloons lied. The AF certainly never said that. Many sightings (e.g. Blue Book) are still classified as “unknown” to this day and probably always will be.

TRUE “disclosure”, anyone?

Of what?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:08 am

LOL

Thanks, guys. :)

I thought that CIA report was sorta' interesting (IMO) when I received it about ten years ago - i.e. around the same time that USAF was busy using Moore's testimony as director of Project Mogul to ridicule UFOs. ;)

Seeing as I had cited Moore's analysis to question AD's "timeline" (and offering it to my audience as "Gospel Truth" straight from the director of Project Mogul himself), I thought it only fair to impeach the "cynical" credentials of my own source by presenting one of his lesser-known "youthful indiscretions" for everyone else's due concern... LOL


In other words:

Will the REAL Charles B. Moore please stand up?

;)


{AD - My only intended point was that witnesses are never questioned (pro or con) -- except when they say something that doesn't match our "pet" theories... LOL As a certain poet once said: There are "three sides to every story" - the Black, the White, and all of the Gray areas in between. Whatever it was that Moore saw - however - it clearly seized his "expert" attention as being "unusual", I thought. ~ And though that alone doesn't prove anything by itself, I'd still like to know what Moore found so intriguing about that object. :)}



As far as I'm concerned, Charles Moore may, indeed, be correct about Brazel locating the remains of Mogul / NYU #4. ~ Marcel's testimony regarding the photographic evidence is plainly at odds with J. Bond Johnson's gallery of photos taken in General Ramey's office, and Marcel's military performance reviews reveal that Colonel Blanchard, himself, cited a subtle tendency toward hyperbole in his S-2's analyses.

According to Charles Moore, the neoprene balloons from flight #4 should have degraded to black "ash" in the New Mexico summer sun -- thereby defeating the familiar argument that "new-fangled" polyethylene (plastic) balloons were responsible for the alleged "unusual properties" interpretations from the eye-witnesses -- but the accuracy of his "ash" conclusion might - equally - depend on the amount of time that Brazel took to recover the materials from their alleged exposure to the elements (?).

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



To me, The Roswell Incident is an ever-growing body of folklore that has been native (?) to the State of New Mexico since the time-period of the late 1940's. In and of itself, this fact neither confirms, nor denies, the ultimate truth (or fiction) of the "crashed flying saucer" story.

Should such an "incident" have factually and historically occurred, we could easily expect just such an evanescent (?) body of folklore to (hypothetically) commemorate such an unusual (and memorable?) event.

On the other hand, no non-hearsay "evidence" OF ANY KIND exists (as far as I know of...) within the public domain to confirm it (?).


Toward the factual provenance of a crashed "alien spacecraft", I - personally - am forced to discard ALL of the hearsay evidence (including Marcel's), with the possible exception of the following:



Major Edwin Easley - RAAF Provost Marshall (documented?) whose participation in any such hypothetical "recovery" (if it occurred) seems both likely and appropriate, refuses to admit anything (one way or the other) to UFO investigators while he is alive - yet is alleged to have described a story of seeing "creatures" to his family (for the first time anywhere) while expiring on his death bed.

~ Why would a reputable man like Easely leave such a controversial legacy for himself (and his family), if it were all a bunch of "nonsense"?



General Arthur Exon - The former commander of Wright Patterson AFB (documented?) states that "Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space".

~ Again, why would an officer like Exon lie?



Master Sergeant Louis Rickett - NCOIC of the RAAF Counterintelligence detachment (documented?) who describes his work with Dr. Lincoln La Paz of the University of New Mexico (in September 1947) to determine the trajectory of a crashed object that La Paz determines likely came from outer-space. He (Rickett) also claims to have been on the actual debris field, and to have handled unusual materials that he could not damage. Sheridan Cavitt's 1994 testimony to Colonel Richard Weaver also confirms Rickett's presence on the "crash site".

~ Are we simply to believe - despite the similar job descriptions - that Lewis Rickett is just another Rick Doty? LOL



As to other "evidence" (outside of hearsay), I am left only with the following:


FOIA Memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover's personal files - This document is dated March 1950, and describes an anonymous Special Agent in Charge's account from his (anonymous) USAF source that three crashed "flying saucers" and their crews have been recovered by the USG in New Mexico. No further analysis is attempted, but the report is forwarded as "FYI".

~ From where did a USAF source develop such a bizarre idea, when Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers wasn't to be published for another seven months?



Wilbert Smith's November 1950 "Project Magnet" report - Contained therein are Smith's notorious Four Points regarding the USG and "flying Saucers (which he received via the Canadian Embassy and Dr. Robert Sarbacher -- Vannevar Bush's colleague at The Joint Research and Development Board):

"I made discreet inquiries of the Canadian Embassy in Washington and obtained the following information about flying saucers: (1) the subject is the most classified in the United States, even more so than the H bomb; (2) flying saucers exist; (3) their modus operandi is as yet unkown, but there's a small group working under Doctor Vannevar Bush; and (4) the entire subject is considered of enormous significance by the United States authorities."



General Ramey holding a piece of paper (in two of J. Bond Johnson's photos) that contains the phrase "and the victims of the wreck" - I have studied this recent enlargement for many hours and cannot - in good faith - refute (IMO) the presence of that key (?) language in the teletype (although most of the other words are unintelligible - IMO).

~ What "victims" could possibly have existed from the crash of MOGUL / NYU #4?



And that's all that I really think I know about "Roswell". ;)


The “mystery” endures?


LOL


Best,

Serpentime
Last edited by Serpentime on Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Serpentime » Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:58 am

Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:NYU #5 – July 5th 1947 (First “operational” flight with polyethylene lifter balloons. Recovered near Roswell.)

NYU #6 – July 7th 1947 (Recovered SW of Alamogordo.)

These last two dates are wrong according to “Table No. 7, Summary of NYU Constant-Level Balloon Flights” (Attachment 27 to the AF Report) and “New York University, Technical Report No. 1, Constant Level Balloon” (Attachment 13 to Lt. McAndrew’s “Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings”). They should be June not July.

Where did you get these dates (your source)? Are you saying those are the dates according C.B. Moore? If so, so what? The topic at hand has nothing to do with C.B. Moore.


AD, you are correct on those June dates (I misread Skeptical Inquirer. LOL :))

Launches #7 and #8 (the Polyethylene balloons) were launched in July as part of the Alamogordo II expedition, correct?

Moore's contention was that only Service Launch # 4 (June 4, 1947) could have followed the correct trajectory to be found on the Foster ranch, and to the best of my knowledge (according to C.B. Moore's account, that is...), Service Launch #4 was the only MOGUL flight to go un-recovered?

Additionally, Moore seemed to change his mind (I think?) on the polyethelene question when he identified (neoprene) Flight #4 as his likely "culprit" for Brazel's wreckage.


Aside from the journal entry about the "V-2" flight, is there any other evidence that this incident (July 3) is the NYU #8 flight that Crary is allegedly referring to?

To me, this description sounded more like a conventional "weather" flight for the V-2, and that is why I questioned it.

I don't doubt Crary's story about his "flying saucer" cover story, but I'm not sure that there's any more evidence for his overall culpability in creating the "hysteria" than there is (apparently?) for Blanchard's (and/or Haut's)?


You may be correct in your hypothesis, but I'm not sure (IMO) that Crary could have logically influenced the "flying saucer" story in the RDR ahead of someone from RAAF - seeing as the article clearly references 509th BG as its source (?).

~ That is - of course - unless the MOGUL security officer, or the "General", somehow got involved in RAAF's "decision-loop" regarding what Brazel, Marcel, and Blanchard, had already (apparently?) determined was one of the "flying discs"?

Did Alamogordo somehow influence the Roswell people to "suggest" a "flying saucer" cover story for their wayward balloon?

Then again - if so - how could Alamogordo have quickly identified this "flying disc" as NYU's balloon train, and then allowed someone from 509th to draw far more attention to the classified project with a press release than any "Harassed" rancher ever could on his own - even with help from Joyce, Whitimore, and KGFL?

Why say anything at all?


Just thinking out loud here, I guess, but I'm still having a little trouble crediting Crary for everything that happened that week (?).



That's just my opinion at this point. :)

Serpentime
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:26 am

Serpentime wrote:My only intended point was that witnesses are never questioned (pro or con) -- except when they say something that doesn't match our "pet" theories... LOL As a certain poet once said: There are "three sides to every story" - the Black, the White, and all of the Gray areas in between.

True… or as I always like to say it: There’s your way, my way, and the way it actually happened.

Anyway, I think I get your point. One runs the risk of falling off the fence and not being able to get back on it but in this case I believe the fence collapsed from too many people sitting on it.

The evidence stinks IMO so I personally don’t have any problem throwing the whole bath tub out… baby and all. It’s old, rusty and leaking like a sieve anyway…

Serpentime wrote:According to Charles Moore, the neoprene balloons from flight #4 should have degraded to black "ash" in the New Mexico summer sun -- thereby defeating the familiar argument that "new-fangled" polyethylene (plastic) balloons were responsible for the alleged "unusual properties" interpretations from the eye-witnesses -- but the accuracy of his "ash" conclusion might - equally - depend on the amount of time that Brazel took to recover the materials from their alleged exposure to the elements (?).

I don’t know about that but the way I see it the photos and description of the debris given in the press at the time was perfectly consistent with a crashed balloon and RAWIN targets… as are the descriptions given later by many other credible first-hand witnesses… so the point (Rudiak’s I presume?) is kind of moot don’t you think?

Serpentime wrote:On the other hand, no non-hearsay "evidence" OF ANY KIND exists (as far as I know of...) within the public domain to confirm it (?).

Well, there is the RDR headline that boldly claims RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On Ranch in Roswell Region however if one reads the article that follows it there appears to be a slight problem with that theory as I outlined in this post elsewhere…

http://bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=903259

Serpentime wrote:Toward the factual provenance of a crashed "alien spacecraft", I - personally - am forced to discard ALL of the hearsay evidence (including Marcel's), with the possible exception of the following:

Really? In that case (at the risk of being accused of “gratuitous debunking” again LOL) I invite you (if you haven’t already) to read Tim Printy’s excellent and very thorough (IMO) analysis on these individual’s claims as follows…

Serpentime wrote:~ Why would a reputable man like Easely leave such a controversial legacy for himself (and his family), if it were all a bunch of "nonsense"?

I’m not so sure he did…

Chapter 16: The Creatures
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/milmen.html

Even more despicable is how Randle twists the statements of Easley on his deathbed. Supposedly, Easley states on his deathbed something about "the creatures" (Randle Conspiracy 29) and "I promised the president I wouldn't talk about it" (Randle Conspiracy 219). His doctor, Harold Granik, and an unnamed daughter state this after a granddaughter asked about Roswell. Randle never heard this first hand at all and there are no records of these statements other than hearsay from these two. Even more interesting is what Kal Korff found out in an interview with Harold Granik (or is it Granich?) on July 16, 1994, "According to Easley's family, he was quite advanced in age when he spoke with Randle. His memory was failing him and Easley had a tendency to place himself in events at which he was not present" (Korff 92). Sounds like the same situation with Holden was being played out in this case. Randle pestered Easley until he got the information he desired.

What Randle forgets is there were eight crashes in the vicinity of RAAF between 1948 and 1960 (four of which were between 1948-50), which involved fatalities. It is a very good probability that Easley was probably at one of these crashes. He could have easily switched dates and facts around years after the fact. The story seems to fit into the statements he supposedly made. Sheridan Cavitt discussed the recovery of the debris/bodies from one of these crashes:

We had bodies all over the place and it was a sad thing. We recovered some fingers, of course, there was one hell of a big fire after it happened. I collected a bunch of hands, fingers and so forth, trying to identify them. At the time I thought this was sort of stupid. They had a list back at the operation office. Other than identifying body parts so that some guy's wife would know that she had part of her, used to be, former husband.... (HQ USAF attachment 18.)

Obviously, there was a massive search for remains that probably included setting up some sort of grid and cordoning off the area so civilians would not interfere with the recovery of the bodies. In one case (1956), a Specialist was flown into RAAF (now Walker AFB) for identification of the bodies. These events and Randle probing about the crash may have hit a cord with Easley. In six of these events, there were burned bodies at the crash and Easley could easily have called them "creatures" on his deathbed.

Perhaps this event is what some of the other second-hand “witnesses” recalled as well 30+ years later?

Serpentime wrote:~ Again, why would an officer like Exon lie?

I’m not so sure he did either…

Chapter 19: A Conspiracy to Hide the Truth
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/milmen2.html

Exon is quoted as saying, "Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space" (Randle and Schmitt UFO 112). However, when Stanton Friedman read Exon's story, he wanted to know if Randle/Schmitt had shown the section of the book to General Exon so he could say that all of it was truthful. When he asked this of Don Schmitt, Schmitt responded they had not and "he hasn’t been returning our calls" (Friedman 128). Friedman decided to follow this up and called General Exon, who, according to Friedman, was very reachable. When Friedman read a portion of the book over the phone to General Exon, Exon responded that they (Randle/Schmitt) had attributed considerably more to him than he had said and that he had no firsthand involvement with Roswell. Most of what he told Randle and Schmitt was rumors and stories he had heard at Wright Field and in the pentagon. In a letter dated November 24, 1991, he told Kevin Randle,

...I did not know anything firsthand. Although I did believe you did quote me accurately, I do believe that in your writings you gave more credence and impression of personal and direct knowledge that my recordings would indicate on their own! (Korff 93)

I must say, as long as it’s not his baby, Friedman can be a pretty good debunker sometimes.

Serpentime wrote:~ Are we simply to believe - despite the similar job descriptions - that Lewis Rickett is just another Rick Doty? LOL

Well, I’m not convinced of Doty’s former job description but they both do seem to have a habit of telling tall tales…

Chapter 17: The Joker and the Spaceship
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/milmen.html

In UFO Crash at Roswell, Rickett seems to be content to talk about debris in the field with a gouge (that Marcel said never existed). However, we learn that Rickett made some other claims later on. In The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, Rickett now remembers that he saw the crashed spaceship as well. Apparently, these were told during an October 1992 interview (which was not taped and only comes from notes) just before he died. You guessed it, Randle and Schmitt managed to wrangle out another deathbed confession that can not be independently verified by anyone.

[snip]

Karl Pflock notes that in the later years, Rickett was in very poor health and he got confused easily. Don was pushing Rickett just days before he died to describe the space ship and took advantage of this situation. I would be curious to see the notes on that interview. As we have seen that these authors can "bend" the testimony of witnesses to their benefit.

[snip]

Rickett’s participation in this matter does not end with the crash site. According to Rickett, he helped astronomer Lincoln LaPaz determine the location of the crash site. This is in conflict with his other testimony. If he already knew where the craft was because Cavitt took him there, why did he have to get LaPaz to investigate the location of the crashed object? LaPaz was dead by the time Roswell became a big issue. However, LaPaz had told Hynek that he felt the "green fireballs" were the answer to the UFO problem in the 1960s. If LaPaz knew about the UFO crash at Roswell, he certainly would have mentioned it to Hynek and never claimed that the "green fireball" phenomena was anything significant.

Confusing isn't it?

Serpentime wrote:As to other "evidence" (outside of hearsay), I am left only with the following:


Serpentime wrote:~ From where did a USAF source develop such a bizarre idea, when Scully's Behind the Flying Saucers wasn't to be published for another seven months?

I have no idea but the last line in that memo “No further evaluation was attempted by SA [Blackened out] concerning the above.” pretty much says it all don’t you think?

Serpentime wrote:Wilbert Smith's November 1950 "Project Magnet" report - Contained therein are Smith's notorious Four Points regarding the USG and "flying Saucers (which he received via the Canadian Embassy and Dr. Robert Sarbacher -- Vannevar Bush's colleague at The Joint Research and Development Board):

"I made discreet inquiries of the Canadian Embassy in Washington and obtained the following information about flying saucers: (1) the subject is the most classified in the United States, even more so than the H bomb; (2) flying saucers exist; (3) their modus operandi is as yet unkown, but there's a small group working under Doctor Vannevar Bush; and (4) the entire subject is considered of enormous significance by the United States authorities."

Well, concerning point (1) it’s no secret (LOL) it was indeed classified at the highest level at the time so no big mystery there. The following report for example is stamped TS…

http://roswellfiles.com/FOIA/AFIntellRpt.htm

However, I have a problem with the assertion “more so than the H Bomb” since AFAIK (which isn’t saying much) there is no classification “above” TS per se.

[insert standard brief on the relationship between TS, TS/SCI, and the Q compartment clearance for example here]

Now of course there are Special Access Programs where access is limited for obvious reasons to a very select few who hold a TS clearance but I see no evidence (or conceivable reason) for a SAP to have been established for UFOs.

Concerning point (4) a detailed review of the various official UFO projects shows that contrary to popular belief (?) very few personnel (at times only one or two IIRC) were assigned to them and in fact these projects always seemed close to receiving the brass axe so where's the enormous significance?

BTW some good summaries IMO…

PROJECT GRUDGE
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/Grudge.html

PROJECT BLUE BOOK
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/Bluebook.html

Serpentime wrote:~ What "victims" could possibly have existed from the crash of MOGUL / NYU #4?

Besides some small (and unlucky) indigenous creatures? This makes sense to me…

Myth #13: The message in General Ramey's hand describes "victims" from the crash.
http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhome ... myths.html

One should reference myth #6 for this one. However, like a bad penny, the alien bodies keep turning up. In one of the photographs taken at Fort Worth, General Roger Ramey is shown holding a document with wording on it. Wording found in this "document" vaguely looks like the word "victims" and have been presented by several UFOlogists to show that there was a crash of an alien craft. The wording is not clear at all and the interpretation can be highly subjective. For instance, another interpretation could be that it is not "victims" but "remains". All the letters are very blurry and some are not clear at all. When Kevin Randle subjected the photograph of the document to visual inspection by an untainted pool of observers who knew nothing of where it came from, not one reported seeing the word "victims". He concluded, "The real point here, however, is that the word "Victims" is not clearly legible to those who have not been told that it appears in the memo, or told where to look" (Randle Re: Last Online). Despite this experiment, UFOlogists keep repeating that the document definitely describes "victims" as a certainty, which is not the case. Without any further verification, stating this is a description of the bodies retrieved from a spaceship crash is a myth based on sketchy reading of vague marks in a photograph.

FWIW I can’t make it out either.

Serpentime wrote:The “mystery” endures?

But of course! After all there’s a cottage industry at stake here to consider LOL.

Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking post! I’ll have to address your next post when I have more time. You raise some very good points in it…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:34 pm

The only facts that we're dealing with here is that this guy, Crary, actually existed. Everything else is simply supposition and hear-say. We're arguing angels on pins. Correct me if I'm wrong.

cs
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Serpentime » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:07 am

Great post, AD. :)

I can see from your presentation that you’re a dedicated researcher, and I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response.

{I wasn’t expecting anything less… ;) LOL}


As far as your interpretation:

Access Denied wrote:…or as I always like to say it: There’s your way, my way, and the way it actually happened.


I will agree completely. The challenge that remains to us concerns finding our way around the first two suppositions, and then realizing our way accurately (or as accurately as possible) to the third expression.

Human history (and Human nature) suggests that the attainment of such sagacity has rarely been a simple or easy task.

As for myself, I’m still working on it… LOL


Access Denied wrote:The evidence stinks IMO…


Believe it or not, I agree with you here, also. That’s exactly why I haven’t paid much serious attention to “Roswell” in quite a while.

Your posting (and the questions of another friend earlier last year) are the only impetus that I’ve had to review the “case” - at all - in years. Nevertheless, the two of you have given me good opportunity and perspectives to consider, and for that, I cannot complain.

~ That was exactly why I (personally) invited you to post your material. :)


As I offered in my previous post, my own consideration of all of the claims, and most of the people making them, left me with very little confidence that the version(s) of events that were being repeated held any realistic validity.

The “Marcel” version of the story is the best substantiated, I believe, (relatively speaking, that is) but even this account tends to fall apart (IMO) in light of some serious inconsistencies offered in Marcel’s own testimony.


Nevertheless, there remained a few “loose ends” in my mind that speculation alone could not entirely account for, in lieu of more substantial explanations, or additional facts that I do not possess.

The examples that I cited outlined most of my long-remaining questions, and though I enjoyed Mr. Printy’s analysis (and the suggestions of others that I seem to recall on my own?), I am not sure that it is fully justified to substitute one set of speculation and hearsay for another, given that it is merely presented from a different (though still valuable) perspective (?).


Essentially – it seems to me – the discerning Inquirer is left with a choice between the different interpretations of relevant events and statements as they are presented by opposing polemicists. Neither side (IMO, and in the witness cases that I cited) has offered sufficient facts to establish an ironclad conclusion.


In other words: ~ Your way, my way, or the way it really happened. LOL


Therefore, my ledger on “Roswell” (and/or other alleged crash-retrievals) remains open – barely.



For Easely and Rickett to suffer from dementia does not seem unreasonable, but for such established (?) “witnesses” to forget that Aliens and UFOs are patently ridiculous - and a bunch of total nonsense to any properly educated person – begs my personal curiosity just a little bit.

In other words – in a “sane” and “normal” world – had I been either Easley or Rickett, I would have simply told Randle (and anyone else that may have been “pressuring” me) that they were totally insane, and that they should stop calling me and coming to my house before I (or my family) notified the Sheriff’s office (or the “Funny Farm”).


And yet – for some reason – they didn’t?


~ I certainly would have – dementia or not. And that’s not an unreasonable suggestion, in my opinion. Nor would it be a difficult decision.



General Exon may have claimed that his testimony was hyperbolized by Randle, but at no point does he ever disclaim Randle’s direct quote which is clearly attributed to Exon:

”Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space.”


Rather – instead – Exon writes to Randle:

”…I did believe you did quote me accurately…”


~ So my own question STILL remains (Stan Friedman notwithstanding):

Why did General Exon make such an unusual statement, and THEN fail to retract it when he was given ample opportunity?


In a “sane” world, this is not a difficult task, either (IMO).


Perhaps this statement means something important – or perhaps it doesn’t – but it certainly does nothing at all to prove it’s own antithesis.

A better (more “conventional”?) explanation may yet exist, but – respectfully – I still haven’t seen it. Regardless of what anyone else might assume, this “revelation” would be most welcomed and agreeable on my part.


In the end, "your way", or "my way", are irrelevant. The only thing that matters to ME is what really happened. Whatever it was. ;)


Access Denied wrote:I have no idea but the last line in that memo ”No further evaluation was attempted by SA [Blackened out] concerning the above.” pretty much says it all, don’t you think?



YES. LOL

There’s no logical reason that SA [Blackened out] should have been evaluating such a silly story. It’s obviously ridiculous, isn’t it?

But why did the AF source bother SA [Blackened out] with it in the first place? And why did Hoover want this type of silliness forwarded to his attention when he had so many other serious things to be doing? (and especially since Bureau Bulletin #57 plainly instructed otherwise?)

Then again, many of Hoover’s detractors have accused him of having a poor character. Perhaps that explains his “credulity” and “irrationality”?

To be personally interested in “flying saucers” (whatever they were) – despite rescinding his own prior Bureau Bulletin #42 (7/30/1947) for Collection relevant to the “phenomenon” (in a fit of “intra-service” pique) – doesn’t seem very logical, does it?

Perhaps the USAF was playing an elaborate hoax on its “rival” – the FBI?


As for myself, I’d just like to know for sure. And that’s my opinion – one way or another.



Dr. Robert Sarbacher (JRDB) allegedly confirmed (in 1984) that he had been the source of the exact information (in question) that the Canadian embassy had provided to Smith. He claimed to remember the inquiry clearly.

If I understand correctly, he also plainly attributed Vannevar Bush’s alleged involvement to a study of artifacts from “outer space”. From Sarbacher’s allusions (as I remember them), whatever he was discussing had nothing to do with either projects Grudge or Bluebook (which Captain Ruppelt didn’t re-name until 1951, correct?)

These statements would have to be verified with Sarbacher, I suppose?

Whatever motivated him to say such things, I am not sure of.


~ Perhaps he was demented? LOL


Access Denied wrote:I’m not convinced of Doty’s job description…


According to Doty’s official records, he was assigned as NCOIC of AFOSI Detachment 1406 on February 11, 1980. Previously, On May 20, 1979, he had been assigned to AFOSI Detachment 1700 as a Special Investigator and Counterintelligence Technician.

His dates of service were September 17, 1968 to September 30, 1988 and his serial number was 11989461.

{Zep and Ry, is that information too personal? Please remove it, if so. My apologies...}

If you like, you can request a copy of his file from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO.

Shawnna might have a copy also, I believe?




Where others have been unable to perceive the English characters for the word “victims” in Ramey’s alleged tele-type, I have reluctantly been unable to come to any other conclusion, or substitution of English words or characters, that best fits the enhancements of the photo that I have studied.

Aside from that one word – and the phrase that appears to provide its immediate context – I can honestly read nothing else in the tele-type beyond the point of distinction (with the likely exception of the word “disc”).


Though this is my opinion only, I would be pleased to be provided with another interpretation that appears more accurate and/or “conventional”.


~ I just haven’t seen one yet (IMO).


In all honesty, the potential implications of this “anomaly” are too important to dismiss completely (IMO) – if that interpretation could - indeed - be accurate (?)





Personally, I’ve never been offended by a little “mystery” in the World.


And none of it has earned me a single penny… LOL

:)



cartoonsyndicate wrote:The only facts that we're dealing with here is that this guy, Crary, actually existed. Everything else is simply supposition and hear-say. We're arguing angels on pins. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I’d be pleased to read your response to my musings, AD. In fact, I think it would be very helpful if you might “walk us through” the evidence behind your hypothesis (?).

Skeptics that we are, I think that any additional facts and/or clarification that you could provide toward the alleged chain of events involving Dr. Crary’s culpability might be very helpful to us?


For the moment – and I mean no disrespect to you, or your research, in any form whatsoever – I am still forced to agree with Toon.

If you could show us more, perhaps we could be appropriately amenable to changing our minds?


I know that I always am. :)



Thanks for the great discussion, AD. I’ve really enjoyed it –

Serpentime
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:11 pm

Serpentime wrote:Launches #7 and #8 (the Polyethylene balloons) were launched in July as part of the Alamogordo II expedition, correct?

Not exactly. According to the aforementioned “Summary of NYU Constant-Level Balloon Flights” #7 is listed as using the same “350 gram meteorological” balloons as all of the prior flights listed. Also in the aforementioned “New York University, Technical Report No. 1, Constant Level Balloon” it says…

Flights A, B, 1, 5, 6 and 7 all made use of meteorological balloons in various arrangements and combinations.” {p.27}

All flights after #7 including #8 on July 3rd, #10 on July 5th, and #11 on July 7th (the last of the “Alamogordo II” expedition flights) are listed as using polyethylene balloons.

Serpentime wrote:Moore's contention was that only Service Launch # 4 (June 4, 1947) could have followed the correct trajectory to be found on the Foster ranch, and to the best of my knowledge (according to C.B. Moore's account, that is...), Service Launch #4 was the only MOGUL flight to go un-recovered?

It appears what Moore said in his statement attached to the AF report (if I’m interpreting it correctly) was all of the balloons used in the TNT flights (and the radar test flights?) were accounted for but not necessarily recovered hence the reason for no tags…

The “service flights” for Dr Peoples were specific ones carrying the microphone gear. The radar test flights were not recorded. There was a lot of pressure to develop the constant level balloons. The tracking was to be done by the Watson Labs radar for the V-2 launches, etc. Starting in early June, 1947 the 307(B) targets came from NYU. We also launched TNT on some of the balloons to simulate airbursts for detection. All of these balloons were accounted for. These and the radar test flights had no tags as we did not want these to be associated with our project and the explosive ones would all be destroyed with pressure switches. To my knowledge, the NYU group were the only ones using balloons in New Mexico during this time but others were involved in other activities so debris from rockets, aircraft dropsondes, etc. may have been found throughout this area. Initially we did not coordinate any of our balloon launches with the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

It’s not clear to me whether or not Dr. Peoples’ “service flights” were considered “radar test flights” however this is what Moore said about the configuration of #4…

I think that Flight #4 was the flight that was launched out of Alamogordo on June 4, 1947. This is based on Dr. Cray’s actual diary of the launch and other events. This is also one of those events where we went to multiple radar targets because we were not having good success with single targets. This flight was with multiple balloons and targets and may have had a sonobouy (black box?). The Watson Lab gear was the microphone equipment specifically for MOGUL.

Perhaps the confusion is centered around #4 being the only MOGUL flight they lost track of among the flights that occurred prior to the date Brazel said he found it? As I mentioned before #7 was only partially recovered and #8 wasn’t recovered either but they were tracked according to Crary’s journal. I didn’t check the rest of his journal for more examples but TR No. 1 had this to say about recovery…

Recovery

Much additional information on the behavior of the train components can be gained if they are recovered. Two methods of recovery are employed: 1) reward tags and 2) recovery by the balloon crew tracking the flight.

Reward tags attached to several components have encouraged the finders to protect the equipment and report its location. The tag and associated questionnaire are included in Appendix 3. Total recovery of flights to date is about 60% of those released.

When the location of the balloon is known by visual observation from an airplane, or the landing area is indicated by direction-finding gear, recovery is attempted by truck by the balloon crew or the crew at one of the downwind stations. Several successful recoveries have been made of flights of relatively short range. It was found in earlier attempts that the balloon equipment was a difficult target both in the air and on the ground. {p.26}

That last sentence sounds to me like a reference to #4 among others.

Serpentime wrote:Additionally, Moore seemed to change his mind (I think?) on the polyethelene question when he identified (neoprene) Flight #4 as his likely "culprit" for Brazel's wreckage.

Are you referring to his interview in the AF report? If so I think I see what you mean. It does appear he was a little confused by the interviewer’s questions but I think by the end of the interview it was clear he agreed neoprene was the “culpit”. Here’s what he said in the signed summary statement that resulted from that interview dated 8 JUN 94…

The early balloons were made of neoprene and manufactured primarily by the Dewey Almy company in Cambridge and the Kaysam company. Dewey balloons were dip type and the Kaysam ones were cast in a mold. The neoprene balloons were susceptible to degradation in sunlight turning from a translucent milky white to a dark brown. Some of the material would almost look like dark gray or black flakes or ashes after exposure to the sun for only a few days. The balloon material and radar target material would be scattered after retuning to the earth depending on the surface winds. The balloon material also had a peculiar acrid odor due to plasticizers and anti-oxidants.

Anyway, it appears some (Rudiak?) are still going around in circles with this? Based on my own review of the evidence I agree with Moore’s assessment that #4 was most likely the source of the debris Brazel found on his ranch. If it wasn’t I’ve yet to see a more credible explanation. Ockham's razor and all of that good stuff…

Serpentime wrote:Aside from the journal entry about the "V-2" flight, is there any other evidence that this incident (July 3) is the NYU #8 flight that Crary is allegedly referring to?

To me, this description sounded more like a conventional "weather" flight for the V-2, and that is why I questioned it.

Well, like I said, in this case (as opposed to #4) it’s listed in TR No. 1 which has this to say about it…

Flights 8 and 11 each employed more than one polyethylene balloon in an attempt to reach higher altitude than possible with the single balloons then available. Figure 39, 40, 41, 44 and 45 show the type and arrangement of balloons and their flight behavior. In both flights, the maximum altitude was not high enough to cause activation of the automatic ballast valve. Consequently, there was no compensation for diffusion other than the steady leakage of ballast through the imperfect seating of the valve. In flight 8, after one hour, this leak was not sufficient to maintain a constant altitude, so the flight terminated. However, in flight 11, constant altitude was maintained at 16.000 ft. +/- 1500 feet for 7 hours until all of the ballast was expended. {p.28}

And according to this since #8 was listed it wasn’t a test flight or a failure…

The flight numbering system has been revised since its inception and now only those flights in which an attempt was made to control the altitude of the balloon are included in the summary. Excluded are flights made to test special gear and launchings which were not successful. {p. 27}

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.

Serpentime wrote:You may be correct in your hypothesis, but I'm not sure (IMO) that Crary could have logically influenced the "flying saucer" story in the RDR ahead of someone from RAAF - seeing as the article clearly references 509th BG as its source (?).

I agree but is it possible when Haut phoned in the “press release” he was asked to either confirm or deny the rumors about the military working on flying saucers and he took it upon himself to play it up? Conversely, is it possible someone in the press took it upon themselves to put that reference in to try and force the military to either confirm or deny it? Wouldn’t be the first time that’s been done to confirm a “leak” LOL.

Serpentime wrote:~ That is - of course - unless the MOGUL security officer, or the "General", somehow got involved in RAAF's "decision-loop" regarding what Brazel, Marcel, and Blanchard, had already (apparently?) determined was one of the "flying discs"?

I doubt RAAF was in the loop. The way I read it the MOGUL security officer (Trakowski I assume) didn’t suggest using “flying saucers” as a cover story as a result of Crary’s “blunder”, he just thought it was a good one because nobody would believe it. According to Trakowski and Moore’s statements in the AF report a meteorological cover story for MOGUL was what they used but it wasn’t official which would explain why the security officer said it was better (jokingly I assume) than anything they had come up with.

Serpentime wrote:Did Alamogordo somehow influence the Roswell people to "suggest" a "flying saucer" cover story for their wayward balloon?

I don’t see any direct evidence of that but of course who knows who all of the players may have been? I think it’s more likely that Lt. Haut simply blew it.

Serpentime wrote:Then again - if so - how could Alamogordo have quickly identified this "flying disc" as NYU's balloon train, and then allowed someone from 509th to draw far more attention to the classified project with a press release than any "Harassed" rancher ever could on his own - even with help from Joyce, Whitimore, and KGFL?

Why say anything at all?

Right, although Trakowski’s and Moore’s statements in the AF report suggest there may have been some limited prior contact...

Trakowski Interview

Q: Did you have any interaction with the people at Eighth Air Force such as General Ramey or anyone else who may have been at Rowell Army Air Field?
A: No. I don’t recall any interaction with them, no.
Q: What about Dr. Crary or Dr. Peoples? Do you know if they had interaction with the
[Eighth Air Force] folks?
A: I don’t recall any, no.

Q: At some point in Project MOGUL did you utilize equipment based at Roswell Army Air Field?
A: No, we had our own aircraft based at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Q: Did you ever have a rawinsonde receiver at Roswell?
A: Not to my memory. No. We may have, but the specifics on that, I don’t recall.
Q: Can you think of any reason why Dr. Peoples would meet with one of the bomb squadron commanders at Rowell in September of 1947?
A: Probably to arrange air drops of bombs as signal sources for testing the MOGUL sound receivers. We had a fellow who was assigned to the electronics test squadron at Fort Dix by the name of Duff, Eugene Duff, an ordnance expert, and he may have been involved in arranging for bombs to be exploded in the air as sound signal sources for testing the MOGUL receivers.

This would seem to indicate at the very least some personnel at RAAF may have been aware of NYU’s “meteorological” activity in the area. Moore’s statement seems to confirm this possibility…

We had no contact with any of the Roswell personnel- although Crary or Peoples may have. There were two July 8th press releases: in the earlier release, Col J D Ryan stated that radar reflectors were being used to track balloons for wind information. July 8th is the same day the NYU group retuned to NYU, so we had no contact with the Roswell personnel when the announcement was made concerning having found the “discs”. When we heard the news back in New York, we joked that they probably found one of our balloons.

Two releases concerning recovered discs on the same day? I actually overlooked this in some of my previous research since the second one is the only one anyone ever talks about LOL but it may be key to understanding the series of events that occurred that week. Here’s what the first release said…

Roswell Morning Dispatch - July 8, 1947
Report Flying Disk Found
By The Associated Press
http://www.project1947.com/fig/1947f.htm

Two flying disks were reported found in Texas and at least one is being investigated by military officials as the total number of Texans claiming to have seen the mysterious objects passed the 50 mark yesterday.

[snip]

Another development in Houston was a suggestion by Charles Odom, 23, air force captain in the last war, that the flying disks might be "crystal balls" similar to those he said were used by the Nazis.

He said these balls were electronically operated, and while in midair would send back to a radar screen on the ground the altitude, speed and other data of bombers it approached. He said the balls would fly up to the altitude of bombers, were apparently magnetized, and then flew along with the plane formations.

Odom is now with Pan American Airways.

His suggestion brought a comment from Col. J. D. Ryan of the 8th Air Force, Fort Worth Army Air Field, that he had never seen such balls, nor had he ever heard of them, although he made about 60 missions.

Col. Ryan said the U.S. now uses a balloon sent aloft to gain such information. The balloon has a reflector on the bottom which is picked up by ground radar. He said they were made of rubber, but as they expanded they became opaque.

Clearly FWAAF where the debris from RAAF was sent to later that day believed weather balloons were being mistaken for “discs” in the mass wave of sightings being reported… perhaps due to the excitement (hysteria?) generated by Arnold’s “flying saucers” and people watching the skies for more?

Also, as far as correlating July 5th with the date “the first press report hit the papers two days later” perhaps this is what is being referred to…

Portland Oregonian - July 6, 1947
Reports Come in From All Over Nation Telling of Sighting Mysterious Discs
http://www.project1947.com/fig/1947d.htm

[liberal snipage]

Reports of the unexplained "flying discs" came from all points of the continent Saturday. Here are typical dispatches.

PHILADELPHIA, July 5 (AP) -- An astral phenomenon was being investigated here Saturday to determine whether Philadelphians had seen mysterious "flying discs" in the sky.

AKRON, O., July 5 (AP) -- "Flying saucers" made their appearance here Friday night.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., July 5 (INS) -- A group of motorists reported Saturday they had glimpsed the mysterious "flying saucers" which had been puzzling army officials and meteorologists.

LOS ANGELES, July 5 (AP) -- Pilot Dan J. Whelan and a flying companion, Duncan Underhill, reported they were "scared silly" when they saw what they believed was a "living saucer" about 25 miles south of here Friday.

AUGUSTA, ME., July 5 (AP) -- The civil aeronautics administration office said it had received a report that a dozen of the mysterious sky discs had been seen over this city.

ROGERS, ARK. July 5 (AP) -- J. P. Crumpler, a Rogers real estate dealer, said Saturday he saw one of the "flying saucers" Monday night during a windstorm. He was watching the approach of a storm cloud from the porch of his home when the disc appeared out of the northwest and vanished rapidly into the southwest, he said.

SAN JOSE, CAL., July 5 (AP) -- Sgt. Charles R. Sigala of the army air forces said he and three others saw a silvery, flying disc over his home at near-by Mountain View Saturday at 11 A. M.

SUMMERSIDE, Canada, July 5 (AP) -- Farmers in this Prince Edward Island region claim to have seen more of the mysterious disc-like missiles reported flying through northern skies earlier this week.

NEW ORLEANS, July 5 (INS) -- The "flying disc" mystery spread to the deep South Saturday.

AUGUSTA, Ga., July 5 (INS) -- An Augusta physician said he was certain Saturday that he saw the "flying saucers."

PORT HURON, Mich., July 5 (INS) -- The mysterious "flying saucers" which have been sighted in several states across the country Saturday were reported over Port Huron, Mich.

WALTER, Okla., July 5 (AP) -- Two "flying saucers" which "were flying in the air -- passing each other and going back and forth" were reported Saturday by C. E. Holman, 67-year-old Walter gardener.

LOS ANGELES, July 5 (INS) -- Leo Bentz, once a noted builder of auto racing cars, produced a possible new theory Saturday on the enigma of the "flying saucers."

SEATTLE, July 5 (INS) -- Another flying disc was reported seen over Seattle Saturday by a woman and her four-year-old son.

States where the discs have been reported: Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Arkansas, Tennessee, Maine, Florida, Utah, Maryland, Iowa, Kansas and the District of Columbia.


And…

Portland Oregonian - July 6, 1947
'Flying Disc' Reports Come From Hundreds, in 28 States
Science Fails to Give Facts
Government Men Ask to See Sample


(AP) -- The nation was baffled Saturday by the "flying saucers" reported seen in 28 states by hundreds of persons while conjectures on their meaning flew as furiously as the reported speed of the silvery discs.

Official government sources took a "let's see one" stand on the phenomenon, and so scientists preferred a detailed explanation.

Near unanimity was recorded on some of the discs' characteristics -- terrific speed, bright reflections, round or oval in shape, flat, and flying with a peculiar undulating motion. Size was moot and expressed by Captain Smith of United Air Lines as "hard to judge" without knowing the distance from the observer to the objects.

An army air forces spokesman in Washington on July 3 said there was not enough fact to "warrant further investigation," but the air materiel command at Wright field, Dayton, Ohio, said it was making a study. Saturday at Washington an army researcher admitted "we're mystified" and the navy said it had no theories.

Since FWAAF was already investigating two crashed disc cases in Texas my guess is the reason the debris was sent to FWAAF for “positive ID” was a) Blanchard was on leave so no dog and pony show at RAAF b) here was a perfect case of mistaken identity that confirms the balloon theory.

The only possible involvement I see by Alamogordo in a cover story for MOGUL was Major W. D. Pritchard’s demonstration and statements on July 10th in the Alamogordo newspaper but supposedly he wasn’t associated with MOGUL.

Anyway, give me some time to respond to your latest post. I’m enjoying the conversation too but I promised my wife I was done with UFO stuff and this is taking a lot longer than I expected. I really need to wrap this all up at some point soon and move on to bigger and better things LOL.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron