From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:03:42 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:14:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Rudiak


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:31:06 -500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:48:28 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Hutchinson


 >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:00:08 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy

 >>Isn't what happened that at 17 miles the balloon device dropped
 >>to an altitude that caused it to disappear from the radar set
 >>which was tracking it from White Sands, or wherever?

 >Tracked from Alamogorodo. Flight 4 was a calibration test, done
 >to evaluate the feasability of tracking these balloon systems
 >with radar. The data indicated that this was not going to work,
 >and the trailing bomber broke off soon after launch.

So Moriarity, we meet again. I see you are back to your old
tricks of making things up as you go along.

Flight #4 is a convenient modern-day scapegoat for the Roswell
crash because there is _no data_ on it to tell us exactly how it
was configured when it was launched, what direction it headed,
how long it was airborne, how high it got, or where it ended up.

I repeat. There is _no data_. There are no surviving documents
on it to tell us any of these things. Therefore, it can be
molded into anything you want it to be and do.

Charle's Moore's explanation in his book (UFO Crash at Roswell:
The Genesis of a Modern Myth with Saler and Ziegler) for the
lack of records is (p. 84), "There is no mention of this flight
in the NYU flight summary, because _no altitude data or ground
track were obtained_"

<snip>

 >>As I recall from the Moore account we only have one launch that
 >>fits the bill so to speak. We also only have _one_ person, i.e.
 >>Moore who says that his diary/journal claimed that a launch took
 >>place on June 4th.

 >Actually, the diary in question was not Moore's, but Albert
 >Crary's, who was the on-site director of operations. So that
 >makes two people.

 >(Entry for Jun 4, 1947)"...Flew regular sono buoy up in cluster
 >of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on
 >plane."

Actually, Moore used Crary's diary to refresh his memory,
because Moore didn't know what date it went up. He just knew
there was a missing N.M. Mogul flight in the records between
flight #3 in New Jersey and Flight #5 in N.M. on July 5, and had
some vague memories about it.

Note that Crary's entry doesn't say anything at all about the
flight being configured with radar reflectors or tracked by
radar.

Furthermore, the sentence immediately before the above entry,
has Crary stating, "No balloon flight again on account of
clouds." That confuses the situation considerably, because then
Crary says they sent something up anyway.

If there had been detailed tracking of this balloon, there would
have been good reason to keep the data. But this was one of two
of the early Mogul flights that had _no flight data_ and weren't
included in the records. The other was Flight #9 on July 3,
which was again scrubbed after an aborted V-2 launch. The
inflated balloons were apparently cut loose, and like Flight #4,
that's about all we really know about its ultimate fate.

 >Moore's recollections, given _before_ the diary was found, fit
 >Crary's entry.

Sorry, Moore didn't recall the date and Crary's diary says
nothing about radar reflectors or radar tracking, which Moore
claims was also used. Aside from this one man's 40+ year-old
memory of this, there is no evidence that radar was used on this
flight. Maybe it was, but there is no record of it.

And for sure there is _no data_ on its trajectory.

 >>As I recall we have no other records or
 >>information that can be verified that in fact can confirm that a
 >>balloon and package was even launched.

 >At least there _is_ a record- writen, verified as authentic, and
 >very solid.

Yes authentic, but what exactly do you mean by "solid?" There is
almost no detail about the flight here. It gives the date, but
not the time, a little bit about the configuration (balloon
array and sonobuoy) but nothing else. Certainly nothing about
radar tracking, direction, flight time, or impact point. It even
says the flight had been scrubbed, then seems to indicate that
they sent the balloons up anyway, perhaps because you can't
reuse the balloons once they are inflated, like the scrubbed
Flight #9 of a month later.

 >Remember that there are _no_ records of any kind
 >that can confirm that the Army Air Force recovered a saucer. :)

Well actually there is. It's held in Gen. Ramey's hand and talks
of "the victims of the wreck" and shipping something "in the
'disc'". More on this soon.

 >>Moore came along a few years ago and ran an analysis based on
 >>data obtained from the weather service about upper level wind
 >>currents back in 1947. Based upon that analysis Moore was able
 >>to get the alleged balloon/instrument package to approx 17 miles
 >>of the ranch.

Again you seem a might confused. Moore's claim (i.e. memory) is
they tracked the balloon to within 17 miles of the Foster Ranch.
(Again, there is zero documentation to support this.)

On the other hand, Moore's "analysis" makes a multitude of
_assumptions_ so that Flight #4 would drop on top of Mack
Brazel's head.

However, Moore does note that if he changed just one of his
assumptions, the balloon could also have ended up about 150
miles away:

(p. 93) "If the balloons had not entered the stratosphere but
had continued in the upper troposphere, _they would have passed
17 miles south of the actual landing site and would have landed
more than 150 miles to the east at the end of the [assumed] 343-
minute flight."

That would have put Flight 4 somewhere in southwest Kansas, not
the Foster ranch. Where did you get the idea that Moore's
analysis somehow proved that the balloons came down within 17
miles of the ranch?

That's the problem with having lots of variables to play with
and _no tracking data_ to pin anything down. You can make this
balloon go and end up just about anywhere you want.

Once a noted physicist said, "Give me three variables and I can
describe an elephant. Give me four and I can get it to wag its
tail."

Roswell debunkers are guilty of wagging the Mogul.

 >>Now I would point out that apparently nobody
 >>independent of Moore has run an analysis of the same data, i.e.
 >>upper air currents, payload etc etc.

 >This is correct... but note that the analysis of Moore's puts
 >flight #4 _within_ 17 miles, _not_ 17 miles "short"!

Moore's "analysis" will put the balloon practically anywhere you
want it, depending on what assumptions you use and how you tweak
the variables.

And again, Moore's story was that they lost contact with Flight
#4 about 17 miles from the ranch, not that his analysis firmly
places the flight's end "within 17 miles".

 >It is worth noting that this kind of analysis cannot, by any
 >stretch, provide a precise prediction- the kind that would
 >place Flight #4 exactly on Foster's Ranch.

Well, at least you got that right. In fact, Moore titles one
section "A _possible_ ground track for NYU Flight #4."

 >Prof Moore was an ackowledged expert on meteorology,

A typical skeptical appeal to authority. That doesn't mean his
analysis is right given the very large number of assumptions he
makes and the complete absence of any tracking data.

 >and it would be very difficult to dispute his conclusions.

Which conclusions? That it landed in Mack Brazel's pasture?
Tweak the variables slightly differently and the balloon ends up
somewhere else entirely, even Moore's 150 miles away.

 >However, if
 >you would like to get another opinion, you can get the weather
 >service data from Kevin Randle. He is the one who gave the data
 >to Prof Moore.

Not necessary. Any critical analysis of Moore's model creates
holes big enough to fly a fleet of flying saucers through.

In brief, Moore makes lots of assumptions, has no tracking data,
and only scanty weather data.

 >>As I recall there was _no_ radar tracking data of that flight
 >>what so ever.

 >Incorrect. Radar tracking by a trailing bomber was attempted,

Again false, according to Moore himself. Crary's diary mentioned
a sonobuoy with the balloon cluster which was transmitting
signals, hence Crary's entry "had good luck on receiver on
ground but poor on plane."

According to Moore (p. 85), "As I remember this flight, the B-17
crew terminated the chase while the balloons were still
airborne.... From the note in Crary's diary, the chase was
terminated because of the poor reception of the telemetered
_acoustic_ information by the receiver aboard the plane."

Now where in the world did you get the idea this was referring
to radar tracking by the bomber? The only radar tracking was by
_ground_ radar from Alamagordo. Of the 5 early recorded Moguls
in June/July 1947, the only one with any indication of radar
tracking in the Mogul summaries was the first polyethylene
balloon flight, #8, on July 3.

 >(which was the purpose of the flight, and the reason it carried
 >Rawins)

Circular reasoning. They must have been tracking by radar and
the balloon must have been carrying radar targets because you
_assume_ from the start that this was the purpose of the flight.

But all that can be inferred from Crary's diary is that they
were testing the sonobuoy reception, not the radar tracking.
That's not according to me; that's according to Moore.

Furthermore, Moore's explanation for the lack of records on
Flight #4 is that they had _no tracking data_. If they had been
tracking the balloon visually by theodolite (Moore's memory) and
by radar (again Moore's memory, not documented in Crary's
diary), then why the complete absence of tracking data that
caused Flight #4 to be thrown out of Mogul records?

 >but the returns were very poor (Crary diary entry for June 4).

Crary indicates the _sonobuoy_ signal reception was poor. Again,
where did you dream up this was radar returns from airborne
radar?

 >Moore recalled that the bomber broke off tracking very
 >soon after launch.

That's not correct either, but it's not a point worth bothering with.

 >>Apparently based upon that we have Moore pronouncement that the
 >>package/balloon accounted for the debris field. In essence the
 >>theory at best was 17 miles short.

 >Nope - the word "short" is incorrect. Moore prediction for
 >flight #4 said it should have landed "within" 17 miles of the
 >actual impact site.

Again not correct. Maybe you should read what Moore actually
wrote instead of making it up.

 >Aside from that, 17 miles is amazingly close. Meterology is not
 >a precise science. Any expectations for more accuracy is just
 >wishful thinking.

It's not just Moore's use and interpretation of meteorological
records that is in question. It's other assumptions about launch
time, rise time, altitude, and flight time, for which there is
_no data._ It's all educated guesswork and assumptions on
Moore's part. To think that you could place the balloon with a
high level confidence to within even 17 miles of the ranch is
indeed "wishful thinking." Or perhaps it is more a matter of a
lack of critical thinking.

 >>I find it amusing that one one hand skeptibunkers will seize
 >>upon a skeptical theory that at best is 17 miles short and
 >>pronounce that as a valid, scientific explaination of what
 >>happened.

 >Even more amusing is the notion that Moore's prediction, which
 >came within 17 miles, is somehow a shortcoming. Talk to any
 >meteorlogical expert (your local TV weather guy/gal would be a
 >good source) and I will predict that you will get the opinion
 >that Moore's data is very impressive evidence.

Still more amusing is your statement that "Moore's data is very
impressive evidence" since he had _no tracking data._ Zero,
nada. Moore said there were no records on Flight #4 because of
that.

The only real data Moore had was a very limited set of
meteorological wind data from a weather station at Orogrande 32
miles south of Alamogordo plus some general weather maps.

The Orogrande data was for balloon launches at 9:00 am. But
Moore assumes Flight #4 started in the wee hours of the morning
so he could keep his balloons up a lot longer than normal and
make them end up on the Foster Ranch using a host of other
assumptions. By the time the Orogrande weather balloon went up,
Moore's hypothetical flight was already coming down on the
Foster ranch about 90 miles north of Alamomogordo and 120 miles
north of Orogrande.

So Moore is trying to extrapolate wind directions not only at
points distant in space but also in time.

Furthermore, the actual Orogrande wind data only goes to 14,000
feet. But Moore assumes Flight #4 got to about 57,000 feet. So
Moore is making further assumptions about wind speed and
direction at altitudes not covered by the Orogrande data set.

I won't bother you with statements in Mogul records and a paper
Moore cowrote about Mogul in the J. Meteorology in 1948 which
state that they were unable to predict the direction of the
flights from wind data collected at surrounding weather stations
in Albuquerque, El Paso, and Roswell. There is even a statement
that they couldn't reliability predict the direction from the
pilot balloons they sent up at Alamogordo itself prior to the
actual Mogul launches. So what makes you think another set of
limited wind data from Orogrande will necessarily make
prediction any more reliable?

Moore makes a large number of other assumptions and
extrapolations in his hypothetical balloon track of Flight #4 to
Mack Brazel's corrale. This totally hypothetical balloon track
is probably what Bruce Hutchinson refers to as "impressive
data." But Moore's tables of numbers are not "data" but what his
model with all its assumptions predicts. I repeat, Moore had no
tracking data.

Anybody who thinks you can accurately predict the actual
trajectory of Flight #4 from this scanty weather data and
plethora of assumptions is living in a dream world. Moore
himself notes that if his assumption of the balloon's maximum
altitude was wrong, his model could put the balloon 150 miles
away even leaving his other assumptions untouched.

 >Even if you leave out Moore's recollections, the evidence is
 >very solid that Flight 4 was indeed launched.

 >We can (I predict
 >we always will!) debate whether Brazel found rements of flight
 >4, or something else. But we should not be debating the
 >existance of Flight #4.

OK, based on Crary's diary some part of the original balloon
seems to have been launched, but in what configuration and for
what purpose is highly debatable. There is certainly no evidence
at all, despite your confabulation or misunderstanding, of any
radar tracking from the scanty written record in Crary's diary.
There is also zero tracking data to tell us where it went. All
Crary's diary says is that first they cancelled the planned
flight on account of clouds, just like they had the day before.
But then they sent the balloons with sonobuoy up anyway. The
only other thing it suggests is that they were testing sonobuoy
reception from the ground and air.

Everything else is Moore's memory and reconstruction.


David Rudiak