From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:53:16 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 15:49:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Rudiak


 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 14:11:42 -500
 >Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Hutchinson

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:00:25 -0800
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 >>>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:17:35 -500
 >>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed - Hutchinson


 >>>I suspect that because Doty's name appears on the Project
 >>>Twinkle Final Report, you feel that this just _has_ to connect
 >>>Doty to CI. You know, ...of course, that Project Twinkle was
 >>>carried out separately from Project Blue Book. In fact, Project
 >>>Twinkle was carried out under the Air Force's geophysical
 >>>research program, a large part of which was handled by the Air
 >>>Force Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL), which later was
 >>>renamed the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory and which today is
 >>>known as Phillips Laboratory.

 >>The information that Doty was OSI came from Leonard
 >>Stringfield's Status Report #6, based on the Project Twinkle
 >>summaries plus information from a witness who said Doty was also
 >>in charge of security at Holloman.

 >>The Twinkle summaries do definitely state that Doty assumed
 >>responsibility for Holloman UFO investigations sometime in 1951.
 >>He and Dyvad took the UFO report from Corona on July 11, 1951. By
 >>the time of discussions with Doty on Aug. 27, 1951, it was stated
 >>that that Doty was "thoroughly acquainted with the situation."
 >>It also clearly states that he was to continue to collect and
 >>review reports and maintain liaison with AFOSI. Doty's 1959
 >>letter to the Holloman base historian mentioned none of this,
 >>only his connection to the balloon projects.

 >>At the very least he was in charge of UFO investigations at
 >>Holloman starting in 1951 and reported to AFOSI, even if he
 >>wasn't AFOSI.

 >What do you have that establishes a "report" structure to the
 >AFOSI? As you very clearly pointed out, Doty was to maintain a
 >_liason_ with the AFOSI, which is to be expected due to Twinkle.
 >But he reported only to his superiors within the AFCRL. It would
 >appear that you are just trying to build some sort of "sinister
 >link" between Doty and AFOSI. There wasn't.

What I previously stated was:

1. Doty was in AFOSI -- apparently false, but it turns out he
_was_ in intelligence (see immediately below) and very closely
linked to AFOSI.

2. Doty was in charge of UFO investigations at Holloman AFB
starting in 1951 -- true

3. He and Larry Dyvad took a UFO report from Corona in 1951.
Dyvad was a chase pilot with Project Mogul in 1947 and one of
the men involved in the saucer/Roswell debunking demonstration
at Alamogordo on July 9, 1947 -- all true. This suggested that
Dyvad was also linked to intelligence or counterintelligence
(unproven), but commented on as likely true by both Charles
Moore and Albert Trakowski (Doty's predecessor as Mogul Project
Officer) in their 1994 Air Force interviews.

4. Doty, when queried in 1959 about his activities at Holloman
by the Holloman historian, went into great detail about his
balloon activities there but said not a word about being in
intelligence and the primary UFO investigator -- true.


 >>Upon review, I would have to agree this doesn't demonstrate that
 >>Doty was with OSI, as Stringfield claimed, but he did
 >>unquestionably investigate on their behalf and report to them.

 >Unquestionably? As you are unable establish any formal links
 >between Doty and the OSI, it would seem that there would be a
 >_lot_ of questions with that sort of claim.

Bill Hamilton, noting my UpDates post, forwarded it through his
connections (I believe Robert Collins) to Richard Doty for
comment. Richard Doty forwarded it on to Edward Doty for further
comment. First, this is what Richard Doty had to say about
Edward Doty's position and activities:

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

" don't know this David Rudiak but I can tell you he hasn't
done his homework. To set the record straight, I submit the
following:

"Edward Doty was my uncle. He was assigned to the 7602nd Air
Intelligence Wing, 1137th Field Activity Group, 14th Field Intel
Unit. He was an intelligence officer, not an OSI agent. He never
was an OSI agent.  During the early days of OSI, they recruited
AF Intel Officers and had some assigned to conduct evaluations
of intelligence. Edward worked with OSI and during the early
days, his unit was housed in the same building as OSI at
Holloman. Edward was never assigned to the Air Force Cambridge
Research Station/Center/Laboratory. That unit was connected to
research and development and was housed at Boston in the early
days. It later became the Air Force Technical Research Agency
and the Air Force Scientific Research Office. Edward never
worked for them."

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

Key points made here by Richard Doty:

1. Edward Doty was an intelligence officer, but not an OSI
agent.

2. Though not OSI, he worked _very_ closely with them.

3. His principle MOS seems to have been intelligence officer,
not balloon or meteorological scientist.

4. He was not assigned to the Air Force Cambridge Research Lab
(AFCRL) and "never worked for them."

Richard Doty then added that he forwarded this on to his uncle,
Edward Doty for comment and received the following:

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

Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 20:01
Subject: Trash Talking


"Rick: Thanks for the updates. I have heard this trash talking
for many years. Charles and I just ignore the stupid people out
there. Thanks for setting the story straight. FYI - The Air
Force Cambridge Research Laboratory was a center for
intelligence collection. Anything to do with advanced or unknown
technology (mostly Soviet and Eastern Block stuff), would be
collected here and then fed on to W-Pat. Also, I was just one of
many involved in Project Twinkle. I had several good officers
working on this project.

"Several years ago, the Todd character, found me. Although I
didn't give him an interview, I did answer a few questions. I
actually turned on my old intelligence officers hat and obtained
more info from him than he did from me. The guy was a real
quack. At least Moore was intelligent.

"Your dad and I were involved in Project Cup, which was more
about UFOs than about Weather! Ask him sometime about that."

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

Now I'll be the first to state for the record that Richard Doty
isn't the most reliable of characters. But assuming this e-mail
was from the real Edward Doty, it states that:

1. Richard and Edward Doty _are_ related, Edward Doty being
Richard Doty's uncle, Charles Doty being Richard Doty's father.

2. Edward Doty states that he was an intelligence officer.

3. He seems to indicate that both he and Charles Doty were
involved in some sort of UFO related project called "Project
Cup", perhaps working under the cover as a weather project. (I
have never heard of "Project Cup" -- perhaps somebody out there
can add to this.)

4. The AFCRL was a center of intelligence on any advanced or
unknown technology and fed it on to Wright-Patt. This presumably
would have included anything on UFOs, crashed or otherwise. If
this is correct, then AFCRL was far more than just a simple
scientific lab sending up research balloons.

5. Edward Doty has some very ungracious things to say about
Robert Todd.

 >>>In Air Force historical reports, Major Edward Doty is credited
 >>>with having created the Balloon Branch at Holloman AFB (formerly
 >>>Alamogordo Army Air Field) almost singlehandedly. Major Doty
 >>>also worked on Project Mogul (or Mogul-like) experiments at
 >>>Holloman AFB at least as late as 1951. He carried out a lot of
 >>>the scientific field work at Holloman for the AFCRL,

According to Richard Doty, Edward Doty was not with and did not
work for AFCRL, though this does not rule out him doing research
for AFCRL. He could have had the same relationship to AFCRL as
he did to AFOSI, i.e., collected information for them.

 >>My, what a fountain of arcane information you are today. I've
 >>never known you to personally research anything in depth, instead
 >>regurgitating what others have written or playing front man for
 >>them. Who are you playing front man for today Bruce? This sounds
 >>like something Tim Printy would have written, not you.

 >Does it matter whether this "arcane information" comes from
 >personal digging or the work of others?

In other words, you didn't write any of this, exactly as I
stated. You are indeed playing front man for somebody else, and
don't have the integrity to state who it is. Who's hiding behind
your skirts?

Perhaps you are unaware that it is also in violation of the
rules of this group to present somebody else's posts
anonymously.

 >The point here is that
 >you are attempting to make Doty yet another pawn in your
 >sinister conspiracy. He wasn't.

Well according to the above e-mails, Edward Doty was an AF
intelligence officer (though not counterintelligence or OSI) and
his principle job responsibility seems to have involved
investigation of UFO's, not ballooning or weather (which were
perhaps public cover jobs). Edward Doty hints at this in his
response.

Whether this makes him "another pawn" in some "sinister
conspiracy" are not my words but yours. At least with the base
historian, he was not forthcoming about being either an
intelligence officer or in charge of UFO investigations at
Holloman.

 >>>And as a side note, your site erroneously claims Edward Doty was
 >>>the father of Richard Doty. (Richard has also claimed -falsely-
 >>>that Edward was his uncle!) You need to correct that.

 >>Richard Doty told people like Bruce Maccabee and Philip Klass
 >>that Edward Doty was his father. He told Robert Todd that Edward
 >>Doty was his uncle. Before I "correct" this, perhaps you can
 >>enlighten us to the true relationship of the two Dotys and how
 >>you know this for a fact.

 >Instead of asking Richard again, Robert Todd thought it might be
 >interesting to talk to Edward instead! Edward Doty told Todd
 >that he had never even met Richard, let alone fathered him.
 >There is no relationship between the two men except the
 >coincidence of their last names.

In other words, all you have is hearsay evidence that Edward
Doty allegedly told Robert Todd he was no relation of Richard
Doty.

In contrast, according to the above e-mails, Richard Doty again
asserts that Edward Doty is his uncle. Edward Doty allegedly
corroborates this and mentions Richard Doty's father Charles.

In another e-mail, received by Grant Cameron from Richard
Collins with Richard Doty's complete response, Doty elaborated:

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

"As for me telling anyone Edward was my father is dead wrong.

Robert Todd was an idiot and never obtained that information
from me. I never spoke with Todd. He claimed to have interviewed
me once but it must have been an imposter because it wasn't me.
Bill Moore had many associations with Todd, not me. I never told
Phil Klass anything about my family. Phil Klass claimed he
conducted his own research and found that Edward Doty was
related to me! As for Bruce Maccabee. He knew Charles was my
father and told me this on many occasions. In fact during my OSI
days, Maccabee sent a letter to OSI making a complaint against
me because I failed to provide him information about the
"Kirtland incident". In that letter, he mentions my father! I
forward this email to Edward. I don't think he'll respond to
"trash" but he might. As for my father, he won't respond to
idiots or false information."

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

At this point it comes down to who do you believe:
Richard/Edward Doty or Robert Todd (neither of whom I consider
to be very credible)? So far I see no proof that Richard and
Edward Doty aren't related, so there is still nothing to
correct.

 >>If I am wrong about Doty being AFOSI (as it currently appears I
 >>am), I have no problems making the necessary corrections. I do
 >>strive to be accurate.

 >>Perhaps you can tell your pal/ghostwriter Tim Printy to do
 >>likewise on his webpage concerning Charles Moore's Flight 4
 >>trajectory hoax and alternation of the Flight 5 map. He's still
 >>claiming I got this all wrong and Moore is an innocent.

 >Well, as it happens, you _did_ get it all wrong!! In your
 >original "proof", you clearly failed to understand how Moore
 >used the table,

Still playing to the audience with bluster and evasion, rather
than addressing specifics, aren't you?

Moore used his own table completely wrong. It is full of dozens
of math "mistakes", all seemingly designed to get his balloon to
the Foster Ranch.

You are back to the same old idiotic argument that failure to
understand completely how the books were cooked somehow
justifies cooking the books.

 >and you made a number of obviously faulty
 >assumptions based on these mistakes.

Which were what exactly? I said Moore's trajectory was
completely bogus and I was 100% correct about this. Prove me
wrong.

 >Tim's site very clearly addresses these.

Addresses what? Printy merely demonstrated exactly how Moore got
2 + 2 = 3. But 2 + 2 does not equal 3. It doesn't matter that
Printy showed exactly how Moore cheated (though Printy, like
you, doesn't have the character to admit to this). The point is
that Moore did cheat -- big time. He is a hoaxer. And not a
single thing that either you or Printy has said refutes this.

 >As a result of Tim's page, you and Sparks were
 >forced to back to your spreadsheets to come with another theory.

No, the "theory" is the same. Moore cheated and is a hoaxer The
only thing that changed were the fine points of exactly how he
cheated.

 >You can (and I predict you will) spin this any way you want, but
 >it is all quite obvious to anyone that reads both sites, and
 >does not need to be re-hashed ad nauseum here.

The only one resorting to spin is you. Anybody remotely
competent in math can see that Moore hoaxed his trajectory. The
real reason you don't want to rehash the arguments is because
neither you nor Printy can defend yourselves.

Printy fled from UpDates after being thoroughly trounced by me.
I even caught Printy cheating in his own math in a last
desperate attempt to salvage Moore. This concerned the _fact_
discovered by Brad Sparks that Moore's rise rate numbers in his
table do not correspond to the real rise rates that he used.
This again led to a different trajectory than the one Moore
printed in his book, another flagrant example of Moore's
mathematical cheating.

 >BTW: Your later theories - the ones that Tim Printy forced you
 >and Sparks to develop - do present some interesting anomolies
 >that Moore's book does not address.

"Anomalies?" More like flagrant cheating by Moore, hardly the
sort of thing Moore was likely to address in his book. A
scientist like Moore doesn't have literally dozens of math
"anomalies" in a single table by pure accident.  When you use
Moore's own numbers in his table and calculate _correctly_, the
balloons miss by a big margin.

 > They are interesting, but
 >hardly proof that Moore was under the direction of the Great
 >Conspiracy.

Whether Moore did this on his own or as part of the "Great
Conspiracy" doesn't change the _fact_ that he is a hoaxer and
that his hoaxing his absolutely _provable_ mathematically.

 >Tim Printy's site does not claim Moore used the data
 >correctly- Tim only demonstrates how Moore developed his graph,
 >which was something you obviously needed to know.

More word play as a substitution for sound argumentation. If
Moore didn't "use the data correctly", then he is either grossly
incompetent or a hoaxer. You are tacitly admitting I am right,
but don't have the integrity or guts to just come out and say
it.

 >Second- you have yet to address your repeated
 >mis-representations of Moore's writings. We are all curious as to
 >why you felt that was so necessary. I won't go through them
 >here, but interested readers can look at Tim Printy's pages for
 >details.

 >http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/rudiak.html

 >and

 >http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhomepage/flight4.html


 >Regards,

 >Bruce Hutchinson

And I would like to refer people to my own Website:

www.roswellproof.com/flight4_trajectory.html

Again, Bruce Hutchinson seems to think spin is a substitute for
sound argumentation. The one guilty of gross misrepresentation
is Moore. I showed irrefutably that he misused his own stated
assumptions and calculated his own data incorrectly, all with
the obvious intent of guiding his little lost Mogul to the
Foster Ranch.

If Printy wants to stop hiding behind Bruce Hutchinson, he can
come back to Updates and argue all those "misrepresentations of
Moore's writings" I allegedly made. We can go over them point by
point.

However, he's not going to fare any better this time than the
last time he appeared on Updates and tried to argue his own
case. The fact of the matter is, neither Printy or Hutchinson
has a case. The reason they have no case is because Moore hung
himself with the trail of bogus numbers he left behind. Neither
Printy or Hutchinson has ever refuted a single one of my
arguments about this. The best that Printy could do was show how
Moore got 2 + 2 = 3. But that doesn't make 2 + 2 = 3. It's no
defense of Moore, no matter how hard Hutchinson tries to spin
it. Hutchinson is like the sleazy lawyer with the guilty client
who ends up pounding the table because he has neither the law
nor the facts to pound on.

Every time Printy or Hutchinson tries to defend Moore, they only
end up digging themselves in deeper as a pair of lamentably
dishonest skeptics incapable of admitting that one of their own
is a flagrant hoaxer.

David Rudiak