UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Apr > Apr 23

Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:46:21 EDT
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:21:22 -0400
Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story - Sparks


>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:34:47 -0700
>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:05:00 EDT
>>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

>>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:11:15 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

>>>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>>>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:46:29 +0200
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Subject: Re: The Roswell Incident - The True Story

>>>>I was not even discussing the testimonies on strange debris.
>>>>My argument is much more simple: The Roswell base said in 1947
>>>>that they had discovered a "flying disk". In 1994 and 1995, the
>>>>Air Force explained that they had discovered in fact a Mogul
>>>>balloon train, which included several radar targets mounted on
>>>>balsa wood sticks. I repeat that not even Laurel and Hardy would
>>>>have seen them as part of a flying saucer. It's that simple.

<snip>

>>>>Another point: the launching of the Mogul 4 balloon train, the
>>>>only one supposed to have radar targets, had been cancelled,
>>>>as stated by Crary in his diary.

>Cancelled on account of cloud cover, also supported by weather
>records. Once the weather balloons are filled with helium,
>however, they can't be reused, so they were then released, as
>was the case with Flight 9 on July 3, which was also cancelled.
>Neither Flight 4 or 9 is listed in the Mogul summary records,
>which instead simply show gaps in the numbered flight sequence.
>There was no "Flight 4."

The question is whether then Mogul project engineer C. B. Moore
is correct in asserting that the "cluster of balloons" Crary
records, which was indeed launched later the same day, June 4,
1947, was the same thing as the just-canceled Flight 4 full
Mogul balloon train, and that instead of just saying that,
instead of just simply saying the Flight 4 balloon train was
delayed rather than saying it was canceled, that Crary must have
jumbled his notes in later preparing his diary entries. That's
Moore's story and he is sticking to it.

But we have a contemporary record that tells us the answer. It's
in Moore's NYU final report of 1948 which tabulates the flights
but skips Flight 4 (and a few others). The Table VII Summary of
NYU Constant-Level Balloon Flights states for the next day's
Flight 5 on June 5, 1947:

(Mogul) Flight 5: "First successful flight carrying a heavy
load."

If Flight 5 was the "first successful flight" then Flight 4 must
not have occurred because if it had been tracked by the B-17
chase plane for 75 miles and stayed aloft for almost 8 hours as
Moore claims, and did so by duplicating the Flight 5's
successful constant-altitude profile almost exactly, as Moore
also claims, and was constructed the same as Flight 5 with the
same "heavy load" of constant- altitude ballast equipment and
CRT-1A sonobuoy as Moore claims, then Flight 4 would have been
the "first successful flight" and it would have been listed that
way, instead of Flight 5.

As Moore writes "I think that Flight #4 used our best equipment
and probably performed about as well as or better than Flight
#5" (Moore in Saler-Ziegler-Moore 1997, p. 105). So if Flight 4
did "as well as or better" than Flight 5, then it was
successful. And if it was equipped the same, with their "best
equipment," then it would have been the "first successful
flight" instead of Flight 5.

Indeed it looks like Flight 5 itself WAS the postponed Flight 4,
the exact same balloons and equipment but delayed one more day
in launch (in fact the same launch had been delayed 3 days in a
row). If you study the Crary diary entries and the 1948
tabulation it is evident that it took 1-2 days of work to
construct the large Mogul balloon trains. If Flight 4 had been
launched later on June 4 then the NYU team would not have had
enough time to build an entirely new 600-foot Mogul balloon
array, to be called Flight 5, in time for the preferred early
morning 5 AM launch time, the very next day on June 5.

The NYU group was busy on most of June 4 and could not spend the
day on building a new Mogul balloon train so soon. Yet they had
a 600-foot balloon train all ready to go at 5 AM on June 5. It
must have been the already-built but delayed Flight 4 now
renamed "Flight 5." The small "cluster of balloons" launched
later on June 4 must have been given the name "Flight 4," and
was not officially logged in the NYU final report because it did
not involve the constant-level balloon devices which were the
main focus of their AF contract work. It ended up just being a
makeshift last-minute test of the sonobuoy device which was
partially a failure.

The Crary diary records the main NYU team arrived on June 1 and
worked all day preparing the balloons in the North Hangar at
Alamogordo Army Air Field. Sometime the next day the diary
states "Balloons all ready to go." So it had taken over 1 day to
assemble the 600-foot Mogul balloon train and it was ready on
the afternoon of June 2 evidently. That is when NYU team members
took the GR 8 sonobuoy receiver to Roswell (of all places), that
afternoon, and took the GR 3 receiver to Silver City, NM,
evidently expecting to receive signals from a balloon launch --
 which never came that day.

Same thing next day June 3, "Up at 230 AM ready to fly balloons
but finally abandoned due to cloudy skies." So the context makes
better sense when Crary states on June 4, "No balloon flight
again on account of clouds." And then on June 5, "Whole assembly
of constant altitude balloons sent up at 0500."

In other words, finally on June 5 they launched this same
assembly of balloons that they had been trying to launch for
four days in a row. It was the same set of constant altitude
balloons and equipment. This was Flight 5, constructed on June
1-2, but not launched on June 2, 3, or 4, and finally launched
on June 5, the "first successful flight."

There is no mention of any work or preparation of a new Mogul
balloon array from June 4 to June 5. If Flight 4 was the huge
600-foot balloon assembly and was sent up on June 4 (and landed
on the Roswell Debris Field) then they had no 600-foot Mogul
balloon ready to launch the next morning, June 5. They would
have had to build a new one. But there is no mention of building
or preparing a new balloon assembly, like there is for the next
flight when the diary records that on June 6 "NYU personnel
getting ready for flight tomorrow," which was Flight 6. No such
"getting ready" preparations is mentioned on June 4.

There was never any 600-foot Mogul balloon assembly launched on
June 4. It was launched on June 5 and this is proven by the NYU
official records of that as the "first successful flight." The
June 5 launch was tracked all the way to the ground by the B-17
chase plane and was recovered east southeast of Roswell. If
Moore's "memories" have any validity at all they are, as Dave
Rudiak has suggested long ago, a confabulation of the events of
June 5, where the landing site and recovery are known and
recorded as nearly 100 miles from the Brazel Debris Field but
are associated with the now highly charged landmark name
"Roswell."


Brad Sparks




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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