UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 22

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:17 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:48:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak


>From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 23:13:36 +0100
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 12:08:20 +0200
>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:40:04 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>>Hi Kevin,

>>>None of this makes much difference to Neil's main argument which
>>>is that there is other debris, mixed in with the balloon and
>>>reflector debris, which cannot be accounted for as part of an
>>>ML307 or weather balloon. He doesn't need Bond or his version of
>>>events to prove his case. His information comes from studying
>>>the Seven Roswell photos and understanding how an ML 307 is
>>>constructed and the materials used in its construction.

>>>Do you have a good set of Fort Worth photos to examine? Are
>>>other List members acquainted with these photos? If you
>>>don't,
>>>there is no reason to follow this discussion any further.

>>Ed,

>>Your claim, after Neil Morris, that there was other debris mixed
>>with the balloon debris, is just another attempt, in my >opinion,
>>to cast more confusion on the Roswell case.

>>The idea that some real debris from the "flying disk could have
>>been mixed to the balloon debris photographed in General Ramey's
>>office, is nonsense. How could they have been so stupid? I wish
>>that sort of absurd game would be put to an end ,now.

>Gildas,

>Where's the confusion? What part of an ML307 or balloon had
>heavy guage metal sheet neatly folded at 90 degrees?

Which I pointed out to Neil years ago could in part have been
delamination of the white paper foil backing from the foil plus
shadowing from the camera flash between the double layer, giving
a thick appearance. In several instances, I marked up a blow-up
he emailed me showing some areas of appeared to be such
delamination. Delamination often occurs when you shred
paper/foil, as you can demonstrate for yourself by taking
paper/foil wrappers from chewing gum or candy bars and tearing
them up.

However another thought occurred to me. Paper/foil is very
lightweight and could possibly have moved a little bit during
the shot. E.g., perhaps someone opened the door to the office at
just that moment and breeze blew in. Or maybe a roomfan blew in
that direction and some of the foil fluttered. This would create
a motion artifact and appear to thicken any foil in motion.

In any event, it is a photo artifact since the _only_ shot that
the so-called thick metal shows up is in the Ramey/Dubose "grim"
photo. The _same_ pieces in the other photos look like simple
thin foil.

>or the odd _hollow_ tube/stick?,

Let me hazard a wild guess - one of the hollow edge sheaths
holding the edge balsa sticks where the paper/foil was folded
back on itself?

>even those nice _white_ stripes you see
>along the edges of those foil sheets in the pictures are
>_incorrect_ and shouldn't be there.

Total nonsense Neil. This a perfect example of the absolutely
off-the-wall arguments that keep coming out from your camp.
Again, for the thousandth time, the white stripes are nothing
more than the white paper/foil folded back at the edges to form
sheaths for the edge sticks of the radar targets or reinforced
edges. They were a perfectly normal feature of the targets. And
yes, they would form hollow "tubes" - nothing to get excited
about.

>The engineering design drawings for the ML307 _expicitly_
>state _no_ foil-to-foil joints

What it _actually_ says is "there shall be no foil-to-foil
CEMENTED joints," which you guys have instead totally
misrepresented as "no foil-to-foil joints." This instruction
obviously does _not_ forbid foil-to-foil joints, which instead
of being _cemented_ can easily be taped. In fact, if you read
the schematic more carefully, it specifically notes that common
Scotch acetate tape (labeled as component "22") was to be used
along various such joints.

In addition, this foil-to-foil note is clearly indicated on that
schematic as being added in _1953_, which means it doesn't even
apply to how the targets were being made circa 1947, unless you
want to invoke another debunking time-travel theory like crash
dummies, again from 1953, being mistaken for aliens back in
1947.

>and this is exactly what those white
>strips would represent _if_ it were ML307 target debris. I think
>David Rudiak's site had a couple of ML307 images on it, go and
>have a look if you don't believe me

Yes, Neil, please have a look where these white strips _do_
appear on genuine ML307 radar targets:

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

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

http://www.roswellproof.com/files/320x240.mpg

>or if you have the USAF report which reprints the original
>1944 Army Signal Corp designs for the ML307 you can
>find those actual instructions printed on it.

The instruction dates from 1953 and you have totally
misrepresented what it actually says.

Are you people quite finished yet with your junk arguments
trying to turn what is basically a toy balsa kite into exotic
debris?


David Rudiak



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