There were other methods the balloon teams used for tracking purposes and rawin devices were not that effective. Mogul balloon #5, which was launched on June 5th, didn't have rawin devices attached. A few of other methods used included:

* Theodolites

* Tracking Aircraft

* Aircraft radio compass

* Radio direction finding set SCR-658

And, weather balloon rawin devices were occasionally recovered by civilians yet no saucer story because people were familiar with metal foil and balsa wood. Note the condition of this recovered rawin device and observe that it does not resemble the shredded remains shown in the Roswell photos.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/White_Plains_NY.html

To underline my point, obtain a roll of aluminum foil and several sticks of balsa wood and throw materials into a field and see if you can convince the rancher the material is from a 'flying saucer.' Apparently, the Air Force was very successful in pulling the 'weather balloon rawin device wool' over the eyes of those who allowed the Air Force to get away with it.

Skyeagle, lets take a step back, ok! This pi**** contest is getting you nowere, never did.


Science says, "Without objectively verifiable evidence, assume that it doesn't exist."

But it is more accurate to say, "Without such evidence, we can't say whether it exists." We must be careful not to become lazy and let our skeptical mind-set become a closed one.

READ THIS....EVERYONE.

Planetary scientist, Dr. David Grinspoon.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/print.php?sid=707

__________________
I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

"hardly anyone"? You mean hardly any pro-crash UFOlogists accept this date. Most people who examine the case, feel that the 14th of June date was accurate. There is no evidence to suggest that Brazel stated any other date.

It was paper backed making it difficult to tear like normal foil.




No he wasn't misquoted. See the movie "UFOs are real". Todd has no website. You haven't shown any errors at all. In fact, all you have shown is how you avoid answers and how little you really know.

The problem with the "little green men" statement is that there is no record of this term being used in 1947. Can you show me where the media was talking about "little green men"? This brings into question Frank Joyce's statements/recollections.


Nice pasting of others opinions and work. Do you EVER do any of your own writing? Robert Todd is a lot more respected for his research with UFOlogy than you could ever expect to be. Can you prove that Marcel had a degree in Physics as he claimed in a RECORDED interview?


But they did not do this to civilians. The nuclear testing was using soldiers who were active duty and they thought the effects would be minimal. Wrong thinking but it is easy to second guess years later. I am not sure where the airmen get into this unless you are talking about racial bias, which was wrong. However, this is not the same thing you are describing.

Depends on which witness you pick and choose and how you interpret what they say.

Based on hearsay testimony years later. There are no records anyway that indicate that additional personnel went off base in a massive recovery effort. To quote Walter Haut, who was asked about unusual activity on base:

"Not that was known to the average people. Carry this one step further. It was never mentioned in a staff meeting. And I used to sit in all the staff meetings"

How can this be if it took many military personnel days to clean up the debris?


[quote=skyeagle409;902957]
Rawin devices do not shredd in the manner as depicted in Ramey's office. Perhaps you should take a course in aerodynamics to find out why. quote]

LOL. Since when have you demonstrated you have such knowledge and ability to discern how the RAWIN device will shred. I am sorry, I have the opinion of a REAL expert (not some Walter Mitty who claims to be an expert among many other things). Professor Moore states that this was the normal effect one would expect. When you can demonstrate that this is incorrect with real facts and not your biased and non-expert opinion on the matter, his opinion stands.

It does not confirm anything. It confirms that the media was interested enough to inquire about the Roswell story with the war department after Ramey had made his announcement. A contact was given for more information (Col Duffy, who happened to know a lot about what was going on with the NYU team). It does not say that all commands are supposed to use this explanation and it is not directed at Fort Worth. It isn't even classified, which such a document would be assuming you believe that there would be a cover-up.

That is where knowledge comes into play.

Well, the Air Force implied that Mogul balloon train #4 was responsible for the Roswell incident but when you look at the records of the people who launched those balloons, you will find that Mogul balloon flight #4 was actually cancelled and never flew and that is why there are no records, either in NYU's Mogul balloon records nor in the Mogul records of A. P. Crary and if you understood the agreement between the CAA--now known as the FAA--and Mogul balloon teams, you would have found out why Mogul balloon flight #4 was cancelled on June 4th.

The Air Force would never have concocted such a sensational 'flying saucer' story over a typical weather balloon and that is a very important clue.

That is fairly evident even to a former congressman from New Mexico who commented that he didn't believe a balloon was involved in the Roswell incident either. After all, the Air Force said that it was a weather balloon for 47 years and then changed its mind to a Mogul balloon train that never flew and the further add, that the 4-foot tall alien bodies people saw in 1947, were accident victims and 6-foot test dummies of the 1950s. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is wrong with the Air Force's cover stories on the Roswell incident.

Well, some were misquoted as was the case with Marcel and noted by other researchers. It is a known fact that Sheridan Cavitt was lying and that is why some researchers won't touch him with a 10-foot pole.

Checking it out, the skeptics were the folks who have clouded up the Roswell issue. Had they done their homework they would have found that the debris in the Roswell photos were not what was recovered on the Foster ranch.

The debris the witnesses have described exhibited physical characteristics of new and exotic metals, not traits of ordinary tin foil.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list100309


Well, he information that I have been providing were obtain from the records of NYU and other Mogul balloon records. Perhaps, you should tell them they are wrong.

Considering the 'flying saucer' reports of the Project Mogul and Skyhook balloon teams over New Mexico, I doubt very much those official reports were faked and had nothing to do with the Air Force's Roswell cover-up reports.

http://www.nicap.org/nmexico/wsands490614docs.htm

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm

http://www.nicap.org/wsands2dir.htm

http://www.nicap.org/wsands2mc.htm

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Mogul_UFOs.html


How many adults would have confused ordinary tin foil and balsa wood as the remains of a 'flying saucer' that any school-aged child could have easily identify?

You see, Mental, knowledge has much to do as far as when to "throw 'em" and when to "hold 'em," Otherwise, you are at the mercy of those who are well-known for pulling the wool over those who are not in-the-know.

Then you missed the recorded interview in the movie "UFOs are real". Why would he state that the media saw some of the material that he recovered?


Blah..Blah...Blah..You have NO facts and have presented NO evidence.

Fact: On June 4th, the NYU team launched a balloon cluster.

Fact: The NYU team was using RAWIN reflectors in cluster flight #2 (only two flights before this one).

Fact: The winds that day were blowing towards the NE, the general direction of the Foster Ranch.

Fact: This balloon flight was NEVER recovered.

Fact: The photographs of the debris show rubber weather balloon material and a RAWIN reflector of the same type used by the NYU team (there were different types of reflectors in use at the time).

Fact: In at least one interview, Jesse Marcel Sr. stated that some of the actual debris was in a photograph taken at Fort Worth. He also stated in another interview that the media had seen at least some of the debris he had recovered.

These did happen and can not be disputed

Your interpretation of these "facts" are:

This flight did not carry any RAWIN targets because Crary did not say so in his journal, which is an incomplete record and never recorded everything that was in these balloon clusters simply because he was not present at the launching.

Professor Moore fudged his numbers and the winds could never make the flight reach the Foster ranch. Moore did make errors but one can calculate numerous flight paths. The key point is that the winds could support a flight to the Foster Ranch. If the winds were blowing south or west, you would have a case. However, they were blowing towards the NE. This is a FACT.

Jesse Marcel was misquoted in his interview with Moore (not Shandera who was not involved in the work for the book) and that he must have been confused when he stated that the media saw some of the debris (verifying the statement you said was a misquote).

The debris in the photographs is a hand torn RAWIN target substituted at Fort Worth. Unfortunately, according to Irving Newton (a weather officer at Fort Worth), they did not have such radar targets in use there. He also was unaware of any effort to procure balloon materials for such a switch. Additionally, the balloon material is blackened (it normally is not black - see Professor Moore's description/photographs in the 1994 AF report) as if it were left out in the sun for a long time and not an hour or two.

All your facts are just guesswork not backed up by anything but 30-40 year old memories, selective quoting, and conspiracy theories.

Sky Eagle is going to keep posting until the thread is locked. I am not going to waste any more effort in this. Skyeagle promised new facts but has none. In fact, his old facts are his interpretations of what he thinks happened. The real facts can be found by those interested. I would like to plug my website as a ready source:

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

However, don't take my word for it. Read ALL the books if you wish. Some are in your library. Personally, I think the best is Karl Pflock's book, "Roswell: Inconvenient facts and the will to believe". Another book is "UFO crash at Roswell: Genesis of a modern myth". One is in my local library and may be in yours. I encourage anyone interested to make an informed decision about what they think happened. I think you will discover that much of what is written in the pro-crash books is about as selective as you may have found Skyeagle to be.

If you want to look elsewhere on the web, you can obtain everything you wanted to know about project Mogul and download the same files (the 1994 and 1997 reports) that Skyeagle has used:

http://www.gl.iit.edu/wadc/history/roswell/

Lastly, another good resource of Roswell information can be found at:

http://www.roswellfiles.com/index.htm

If you want to see where Skyeagle gets all of his pro-crash information (he keeps referencing this website), you can go to David Rudiak's webpage. Rudiak is an optometrist who has long championed the crashed spaceship scenario. His claim to fame is appearing in Sci-Fi's Roswell show demonstrating that Ramey is holding a document that is the "smoking gun" that something really extraordinary was found at Roswell. At least his website is informative with lots of old newspaper articles from the time period about Roswell:

http://www.roswellproof.com/

As for this thread, I am ending my participation. I enjoyed some of the commentary by others here and I hope I did not try everyone's patience too much by debating skyeagle over the same points endlessly. I don't like wasting my time anymore than you probably do. Especially, when I have more fun taking pictures of Comet McNaught:



Enjoy everyone!

That date is a farce and only presented after Brazel was taken into military custody.

http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/Roswell_Timeline.htm

http://www.scifi.com/roswellcrash/do...s/timeline.pdf

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious...ell/index.html

http://www.artgomperz.com/newse/rosw/index.html


Oops, my mistake! I meant to refer to Robert Carroll, not Robert Todd. Sorry about that!

I debated that on another board and there is no evidence it was not used either before 1947 either.

I find it very convenient.

Oh yes they did!! In fact, a few years ago, the SF Chronicle did a short story in regards to the Navy releasing viruses off the coast of California to obtain test results on the public.

The miliary was well-aware of the dangers of radiation. It only had to look at the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Just before his death, provost marshal, Edwin Easley, gave a hint that the Roswell researchers were on the right track, and you know what UFO researcher I am talking about so please post his name to let me know that you do know for whom I am referring.


[quote=skyeagle409;902957]
Rawin devices do not shredd in the manner as depicted in Ramey's office. Perhaps you should take a course in aerodynamics to find out why. [quote]

You will note in the rawin photos they do not resemble the shredded remains of the rawin device in the Roswell photos. Now, do you know why?

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/balloon_crashes.html

[QUOTE=astrophotographer;903128]Sky Eagle is going to keep posting until the thread is locked. I am not going to waste any more effort in this. Skyeagle promised new facts but has none. In fact, his old facts are his interpretations of what he thinks happened. The real facts can be found by those interested. I would like to plug my website as a ready source:

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

Tim,

When can we expect for you to make a correction on your website that there was NO Mogul balloon train flight #4 launched on June 4, 1947?

If this is how you understand science and evidence, no wonder your arguments make no sense to anyone other than you. Repeating the Pluto statement only serves to reinforce that you have absolutely no idea what you are actually talking about.

Again, we have said it, but for you to put it into words yourself does a much better job of it that we ever could. Thank you for completely discrediting yourself and poisoning the well of any claim you could ever make.

Now, the forum can quit wasting bandwidth on your absurd claims.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Tim,

Sorry if I came down on you in such a manner but as a researcher with an internet website you have a moral responsibility to make sure that all of your information is as accurate as possible because there are those who use your website as a reference as was the case with Access-Denied and you know the rest of that story.

When can we expect for you to make a correction on your website that there was NO Mogul balloon train flight #4 launched on June 4, 1947?

Also before you go, your lighthouse explanation on the Rendlesham UFO incident of 1980 is incorrect as well. The lighthouse in question has a light-blocking backshield between it and the base. I guess there are those who didn't know that.

A Rendlesham UFO skeptic found out the expensive way that the lighthouse could not have been responsible for those incidents yet you continue to post that the lighthouse was responsible, when in fact, it wasn't. The Rendlesham skeptic went there to see for himself to where reality set in and he was forced to change his claim that the lighthouse was responsible for those incidents. Also, I want to pass on to you that my compatriots, who were at RAF Bentwaters during those incidents, have indicated to me that you "are incorrect" as well so when can we expect you to make another correction on your website?

If you keep posting such grave errors on your website as you had done in regards to the Air Force's C-54 and Kirtland AFB, I may come to the conclusion that your website is a skeptical UFO website on par with that of CSICOP and the Skeptic's Dictionary. You rely too much on what other people say and it seems to me that you do not harbor the necessary knowledge to know when you've been had! I was sitting here with NYU's Mogul records and knew the whole story beforehand and watched as you continued on with your missteps. It is such skeptical UFO websites that have clouded the UFO enigma for many years and they do more harm than good on the issues at hand.

It is time for you to revise your website with reliable information and you need to educate yourself highly on the technical issues rather than relying on wirtten words of others so you will know when to "throw 'em and when to "throw 'em and at this point, I am sad to say that you haven't reached that point yet. I sincerely hope you will educate yourself on the technical issues regarding the UFO enigma rather than relying solely on words of others who may be mistaken themselves but at least you will have the knowledge to know when they are mistaken.

http://www.roswellproof.com/Rendlesham_pictorial.html

With that, I'm outta here!!

That's as may be. However, you do ignore evidence that isn't convenient to your pre-drawn conclusion, so why should we listen to you? Obviously, you're covering things up yourself.

Okay, but aside from that statement, what evidence do you have that it was a flying disk? For a start, did anyone see the crash? If not, how do they know it was flying? How do they know it was a disk if all they saw was wreckage? On what evidence was the "flying disk" statement based? After all, there must be a reason to call it that, right? What in the documentary evidence leads you to the conclusion that it is, without any other possibility being htere, a flying disk that crashed?

And so seeing something twenty years later enables you to know what happened half a world away? I'm not getting that. It doesn't logically follow. What's more, I never said I was asking you for a physical piece of the Roswell craft, whatever it was. Check what I said. You are attempting to use documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony to prove that it wasn't the Mogul flight (and failing, but that's a different issue). Can you use the same information to prove what it was, not what it wasn't? After all, a downed Soviet craft, a far likelier possibility than a downed alien craft, is also not a downed Mogul flight.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

While it’s true MOGUL Flight #4 wasn’t recovered by Project MOGUL it should be noted that it WAS recovered by Mac Brazel and the 509th. Granted it’s a minor detail.

One other point I’d like to make if it hasn’t already is that as far as I know there is no proof the military ever claimed to have recovered a “flying saucer” PERIOD. No copy of the alleged official press release has ever been found. The whole case hinges on what the press said. To wit…

Hmm… the instrument? Oops!

Well, as always, I enjoy reading your material and thanks for turning me on to this forum. Before you leave though I’d like to present you with this lovely parting gift if I may as a small token of appreciation for your effort…

I suspect that it has something to do with laying out on an open plain for a month, getting blown accross tumbleweeds and various other plain type flora. Perhaps even the occasional sheep nibble.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

I think we owe skyeagle the opportunity to answer at least one question.
The question is: Was the object you saw over your base in Vietnam in 1968 an extraterrestrial craft piloted by extraterrestrials? This is a very simple question. It requires only a yes or no answer. No need for allusions, metaphors, clichés or embellishments of any kind. The question is: In your opinion, was the object you saw over your base in Vietnam in 1968 an extraterrestrial craft piloted by extraterrestrials? Yes or no. It really is that simple.

__________________
Reality: What a concept!……………………..><Ç(((Ç°>

We have a thread on Rendlesham here, if you wish to discuss it;
Rendlesham Forest Incident, Whats your take!
Some of the witnesses concerned admitted that for at least part of the time they were following the light from the lighthouse. I guess there are those who didn't know that.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I'm a little late closing this thread. Skyeagle409 do not start another thread on this topic. IF any new information comes to light, PM a mod to reopen it.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein