UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 24

Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:23:00 +0100
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:05:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Morris

>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 11:06:17 -0700
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>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


>>>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.


>>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.

Nope. I was refering to this piece of debris


Marker C points to the well defined fold and if you judge that
edge also pointed to by C against the sheet slightly behind you
can see this folded sheet is far thicker in guage. It also has a
twist which allows both sides to be seen, _no_paper_. There's
also some embossed edges marked at B' and B'', this shows _both_
sides of the same embossing due to the twist.

Marker D points to some _clearly_ defined symbols embossed on
another sheet close by.

>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?

Nope again, here's a couple of images demonstrating what I mean:


The upper image may be a little tricky to visualise as the item
marker 1 points to is actually almost pointing at the camera and
as you _can_ see has a hollow end.

The lower image shows what appears to be surface damge to a
hollow stick structure,

>>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

>>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

>>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:



Could I suggest that what you may be seeing as "white" edges in
you web image may just be the reinforcing tape over the foil
altering the flash reflection?.

>>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.

This ML307 was launched from FWAAF 9th July 1947, the full
picture was printed in the Star Telegram, this is an enlargement
from a negative scan showing the target itself.


You can clearly see it follows the Signal Corp drawing in that
the edge "stick sacks" are folded over so as to effect a
_paper/paper_ joint.

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

David, please look at this image


This is an enlargement of part of the Marcel Right image, it's
what _looks_ like in the original, just a tattered end of one of
those "white stripes" but look closely at the area I've circled.

Here you can see, quite clearly on the level shifted version,
that the _tattered_ piece is in fact some sort of "tab" attached
to a "buckle-bar" fitting _on_ the white material, I've included
some modern examples of these fittings in the image, You should
be able to spot the resemblace.

A couple of simple questions,

_Where_ on the ML307 drawings does this appear?.

And, have you ever spotted _any_ of these on _any_ photograph of the

There are none to be seen on the ML307 image from July 9th 1947
that I reference above.

While I'm posting links to images, for those interested in the
"Buick Series 60 Fender Sundial", here's the view through
Ramey's window.


And an example of the Series 60 in use as a staff car



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



[ 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