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

<snip>

>>>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.

Nope. I was refering to this piece of debris

http:/voyagemedia.ath.cx/images/fig-7a.jpg

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:

http://voyagemedia.ath.cx/images/fig-7e.jpg

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
>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

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.

http://voyagemedia.ath.cx/images/fig-2c.jpg

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
>debris?

David, please look at this image

http://voyagemedia.ath.cx/images/fig-7d.jpg

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
ML307?.

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.

http://voyagemedia.ath.cx/images/fig-3a.jpg

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

http://voyagemedia.ath.cx/images/fig-3b.jpg



Neil



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