UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jun > Jun 6

Re: Roswell Photos Clears Air Force General

From: Robert Todd <RTodd12191@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:58:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 09:59:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell Photos Clears Air Force General

Steven Kaeser wrote:

>From: "Steven Kaeser" <steve@konsulting.com>
>To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Roswell Photos Clears Air Force
>Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 06:41:02 -0400

>>From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates]
>>Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 20:29:47 EDT
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Roswell Photos Clears Air Force

><massive snip>


> Charles Moore is, unfortunately, no longer a disinterested
> bystander in this debate.  He has joined the Roswell ranks as an
> author who now has a contention to defend.

I object to the subtle implication that Prof. Moore is promoting
something other than what he believes to be the truth.  Mr. Kaeser
never calls into question the motives or sincerity of the authors
who promote the alien spaceship explanation, much less the
motives and sincerity of the witnesses who do the same.

> Again, if I recall
> correctly, Moore had been contacted by UFO researchers in the
> 80's and he indicated at the time that he felt there was no way
> that the classified MOGUL project could have been related to the
> crash at Roswell.  However, his stance change after being
> contacted by the Air Force as they prepared their 1994 report.

This is a comeplete misrepresentation of what Prof. Moore's
position has been, and almost certainly is the result of a
nearly complete lack of familiarity with what Prof. Moore has
stated on this subject.  I am constantly amazed and discouraged
by the willingness of so many people to pontificate on matters
about which they have little or no information.  The literature
is available for anybody to examine, but few people in the UFO
field seem interested in examinaing it.  I would suggest that
Mr.  Kaeser read _UFO Crash at Roswell: Genesis of a Modern
Myth_, by Benson Saler, Charles Zeigler, and Charles Moore.

On page 175 of that book, Prof. Moore states that William Moore,
who started the Roswell myth with Stanton Friedman,  contacted
Prof. Moore in 1979 and asked him "if one of the New York
University balloons could have plowed long, deep furrows in the
ground . . . ."  Prof. Moore responded saying that, _based on
the description Bill Moore had given him_, he could say that the
NYU balloons (_not_ "Mogul balloons") could not have been
responsible for plowing such furrows.  Nevertheless, Prof. Moore
held the belief that one of NYU's balloons probably had been
responsible for the Roswell incident, but he thought it was one
of the newer, plastic balloons that had mystified the witnesses.
Bill Moore had told Prof. Moore "that some heavy craft had
crashed, made long, furrowlike gouges in the ground, lost some
parts, then rebounded into the air and left the region."
Obviously, the NYU balloons were not capable of making long
gouges in the earth.  _That_ was the context of Prof. Moore's
statement to Bill Moore.

Furthermore, Prof. Moore had never heard the classified code
name "Mogul" until I brought it to his attention in the early
1990s.  I also furnished him with one of the Roswell articles
that had appeared in the _Roswell Daily Record_ (RDR), in which
Mac Brazel was quoted describing the material he had found on
the Foster Ranch.  Bill Moore had never showed him any of the
articles from the RDR.  It wasn't until that point that Prof.
Moore's position changed.  He realized that what had caused the
incident had not been one of the newer, plastic balloons, but a
train of neoprene balloons that carried the radar targets, and
that the radar targets were the source of the mystery.  The
balloons used in these clusters were regular meteorological
sounding balloons.  But the balloon material discovered on the
Foster Ranch, and shown in the Roswell photographs, was not the
source of the Roswell "mystery."  The source of the "mystery"
was the debris from the silvery, metallic-looking radar targets
that had been found on the remote ranch.

> Since then he has become a major proponent of the MOGUL
> explanation, and has spoken at numerous events to share his
> "truth", which requires a number of speculative assumptions based
> on limited hard evidence.

Perhaps Mr. Kaeser could tell us at which "numerous events"
Prof. Moore has "share[d] his 'truth'"?

In fact, the only hard evidence of the Roswell incident is the
photographs taken by J. Bond Johnson.  Without question, those
photographs show the remains of neoprene sounding balloons that
had been exposed to sunlight for several weeks, and radar
targets. Enlarging those photographs cannot possibly show
anything but neoprene sounding balloons, and radar targets.

It is not a speculative assumption that Prof. Moore recalls the
use of the reinforcing tape on the targets the NYU Balloon Group
was using. He used those targets between 100 and 150 times, and
each time he wondered about the symbols on the reinforcing tape.
His recollection does not stem from a single use of the
balloons, whereas the recollec- tions of the Roswell witnesses
do stem from their single observation of the tape.  Moreover,
based on the information presently available, it appears the
targets being used by the NYU Balloon Group in New Mexico were
pre-production models that had the quick-fix tape with symbols
on it, and the Balloon Group had brought the targets with them
from New Jersey.  As a result, it is likely the NYU Balloon
Group were the _only_ people in New Mexico who were using the
radar targets with the reinforcing tape that showed the
meaningless symbols.  This links the Roswell debris directly to
the NYU Balloon Group, which was working on an unclassified
portion of Project Mogul.

It is also interesting to note that the symbols that appeared on
the Roswell debris, as described by the witnesses, appeared in
precisely the location where the tape was afixed to the balsa
wood in the radar targets.  The single exception is Dr. Marcel,
who claims that the symbols appeared on the inner surface of
"I-beam" shaped members.  (It is not clear from the witness
statements whether the symbols actually were on tape, or the ink
had bled through the tape onto the balsa wood"-like" members.)

> In an effort to help promote the MOGUL
> explanation,  Jesse Marcel Jr. was contacted and asked to come
> look at the remains of a MOGUL balloon (which I believe Moore
> uses in his "dog and pony show") as well as some material that
> had been "aged" in the desert.  Marcel was emphatic that the
> material he saw did not resemble the items (or material) he
> remembers seeing in his kitchen as a boy.

Mr. Kaeser has no cause to use snotty characterizations like
"dog and pony show," except to imply that Prof. Moore knowingly
is stating erroneous information.  Prof. Moore does not attend
events to speak on the subject of Roswell, and does not perform
a "dog and pony show" in connection with the Roswell incident.
He has stated what he believes to be true in the book cited
above, and I would recommend that Mr. Kaeser borrow a copy from
his local library so he will know what he is talking about.  If
indeed Prof. Moore, or anybody else, invited Dr. Marcel to
examine radar target and neoprene balloon material in various
stages of decomposition, so what?  Mr. Kaeser implies that such
an invitation was sinister or insincere in some way, with not a
shred of evidence to justify such a characterization.

Furthermore, as written, Mr. Kaeser's statement suggests that
Prof. Moore contacted Dr. Marcel and invited him to his "dog and
pony show," as Mr. Kaeser calls it.

The fact is that Prof. Moore has never contacted Dr. Marcel.
Dr. Marcel called Prof. Moore,  twice as Prof. Moore recalls,
and asked for copies of some of the NYU reports.  Prof. Moore
furnished these reports to Dr. Marcel.  While driving through
Socorro on his way to Roswell, Dr. Marcel contacted Prof. Moore
and asked to see a radar target.  Prof. Moore met with Dr.
Marcel and his associate at Dr. Marcel's motel and showed him a
radar target and balloon.  Presumably this is the "dog and pony
show" to which Mr. Kaeser referred, a "show" put on at the
specific request of Dr. Marcel.

With regard to Dr. Marcel's recollections, why is more weight
given to those recollections than is given to the recollections
of Bessie Schreiber (nee Brazel)?  I contacted her and furnished
her with copies of the Roswell photographs.  I asked her if the
material shown in those photographs looks like the material she
helped her father gather up back in July of 1947.  She stated
that the material depicted in those photographs _does_ look like
the material they picked up back in July of 1947.  Furthermore,
Bessie Brazel wasn't awakened in the middle of the night to view
the debris; she helped her father pick it up in broad daylight.
Jesse Marcel, Jr., was awakened by his father in the middle of
the night.

But the promoters of the Roswell myth discount Bessie Brazel
Schreiber's statements because her brother, Bill Brazel, claims
she wasn't even at the ranch, when in fact the Brazel children
_did_ live at the ranch after school let out for the summer,
which would have been before the story blew up in July.  But the
Roswell promoters like Bill Brazel's tales better, because they
add more mystery to the story.  He claims he picked up bits and
pieces of the Roswell debris which were later consfiscated by
the Air Force following some loose talk in a bar.  Bill Brazel
didn't live at the Foster Ranch, but Bessie did after school let
out for the summer.  But because Bill Brazel's tales are to
their liking, the Roswell promoters accept his claims, and
reject Bessie's.

And I ask again, why is it we haven't been told what Mrs. Marcel
(Major Marcel's wife, and Jesse Marcel, Jr.'s mother) had to say
when she was asked about the Roswell debris?  As I undestand it,
she said the debris was _not_ from an alien spaceship.  This is
just one of numerous examples where the promoters of the alien
spaceship explanation have distoted, misrepresented, or hidden
evidence that runs counter to the alien spaceship explanation.

I have been in communication with Prof. Moore for many years
now, and I know him to be a completely honest individual.  He
certainly is no apologist for the government.  He states what he
believes is the truth, and it is disgraceful that Mr. Kaeser
attempts to inply otherwise.  Prof. Moore also is a first-class
scientist, and I would recommend that anybody who cares to do so
read about some of his scientific accomplishments at:


> I would agree that these images will not end the debate, and
> skeptics will use the images to their advantage as best they can.

If these images were enough to end the debate, they would have
ended it already.  There is _no_ question of what those photos
show, and what they show is neoprene balloon envelope material
that had been exposed to sunlight for several weeks, and the torn
remains of one or more radar targets.  Enlarging the photographs
cannot change what they show.  Unfortunately, the promoters of
the alien spaceship explanation have concocted a twisted scenario
to explain away the Roswell photographs.  They agree that the
photographs show the remains of neoprene balloon envelope
material and the tattered remains of a radar target, but they
further claim these materials were substituted for the "real"
Roswell debris.  It doesn't seem to matter that the verbal
descriptions of the debris from the witnesses match what is shown
in the photos, except that the meaningless symbols are not
visible in the photographs.


Robert Todd

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com