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 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:04:39 -0700
Fwd Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:47:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions - Rudiak


>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:24:04 -0700
>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 11:31:59 EDT
>>Subject: Re: Just A Few Roswell Questions

><snip>

>>So, no, this doesn't help, other than supply a different
>>version
>>to the already confused record. I think we can say, safely,
>>that
>>Johnson was out there and he took pictures. I believe that he
>>took six, but others with some rather flakey analysis, seem to
>>believe he took only four...

>"Flakey analysis"? Both Neil and Andrew have used scientific
>methods to arrive at their conclusions. If you have a problem
>with their results, you need to make it clear in a scientific
>way or you can just say "I believe David, and David thinks
>it's
>BS so I'll call it 'flakey'." I think you can do better than
>that. You have a responsibility to your readers to at least
>make
>an attempt to understand Neil's evidence and comment
>intelligently. "Flakey" is a crude and unintelligent
>judgement.

This is something I doubt you will ever understand Ed, but there
is nothing scientific about either Neil or Andrew's methods.
I'm sorry to say it because I know they and you all mean well,
but it has instead been complete amateur hour. I feel like I'm
arguing with the Three Stooges. All you do is further muddy the
waters and waste people's time.

E.g., the repeated claims that an ML307 radar target could not
possible have white strips on foil is utter nonsense by people
who don't have a clue as to what they are talking about much
less being "scientific" about it. In addition, you and Neil and
Andrew repeatedly ignore the photographic evidence I point you
to of ML307 targets clearly showing these very same white
strips. Andrew was so far out of it he even claimed at one
point several years ago that the Air Force altered the photos
and engineering schematic to make it only seem that the white
strips were there. No kidding.

Recently Neil again misquoted the engineering schematic,
claiming it actually forbids such strips, when what it really
said (in a _1953_ note) was that there were to be no
foil-to-foil CEMENTED joints. Neil left out the word "cemented"
and like Andrew before him doesn't seem to have enough sense
that such joints can easily be made using simple Scotch tape, as
is actually specified in the schematic. Maybe you guys have
never made toy kites before.

>>so now we need a third cameraman

>Yes, we do.

And Ed, I doubt you will understand this either, but this claim
is based on another faulty analysis of Andrew Lavoie by
measuring rug stripe angles. All he did was do a simple
measurement of the stripe angles in several of the photos, but
failed to take into account the height of the camera or where it
was pointed, both of which affect the stripe angles. In other
words, he ignored simple perspective and his methodology was
completely flawed. The analysis was overly simplistic and again
not "scientific," even if he made graphs out of the measured
angles. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say in the trade.

>>take two pictures of Marcel... not to mention the guy who took
>>the picture of Newton.

>Yes that is correct.

No, that is something you _cannot_ conclude, because the
analysis was botched.

>>I think we can safely say that the debris
>>in all the pictures is the same,

>No you better take a closer look. Examine the Bettmann.
>If you don't have it, I'm sure Neil can send it to you.

Oh yes, Neil's "thick metal." You can compare these same pieces
in the other photos and they are obviously thin foil/paper in
the other photos. The thickness in the Bettman photo is
probably an artifact. I suggested motion of some of the
lightweight foil pieces (by air currents) in the Bettman photo
as a possible explanation for the "thickening."

>>though the angles of the
>>photographs change and some of the debris is moved around as
>>people handled it.

>Parts of the debris have been hidden or rearranged for no
>apparrent reason.

Really? Why don't you be more specific about what has "been
hidden or rearranged for no apparent reason." Some of the
debris got moved around. So what? Maybe a piece of foil or
stick in one photo can't be completely see in another because of
the angle. So what? Unless you can actually demonstrate that
some piece of debris had something highly unusual about it and
was clearly removed, you are again just spouting a lot of hot
air.

>>Johnson's legacy is a confusion about what he saw and did
>>because he offered so many versions of it. When we reduce this
>>to the known facts as opposed to the speculations, we have
>>Johnson photographing a balloon and target with the cover
>>story already in place.

>Well yes, the cover story had been in place since the Army
>Intelligence decided on these tactics: bait and switch. It was
>a drama concocted to deceive the public. But for some reason
>they left some of the debris in Bond's photos and it's there for
>all to see who care to examine the evidence. Maybe they thought we
>were too dumb to realize the difference.

What we have are some people who can't read engineering
schematics, can't think straight, who are trying to make a name
for themselves in the field, and who have very overheated
imaginations taking an obvious balsa wood and foil radar target
kite and trying to spin it into exotic flying saucer debris.

>>We have no "real" debris in those pictures

>Yes we do see real debris,

Only in your overheated imaginations Ed.

>but that's not the only question. We must also decide if the
>radar reflector is a ML306 or an ML 307. They were not the
>same in design or construction and so had different parts. I'm
>putting my money on an ML306.

Oh, good grief! ML306: rectangular panels. ML307: triangular
panels. Photos in Fort Worth: triangular panels. End of story.
It's an ML307.

>That rules out Mogul.

Even if it were an ML306 (which it isn't), it's just another
type of radar target. This doesn't somehow prove that there is
exotic saucer debris mixed in with the radar target debris.

>important our disagreements could become. I think everyone on
>the list should follow our discussions carefully.

The problem is that you guys have been putting forward the same
crap arguments for years and no matter how thoroughly they are
disproven, you never seem to learn a thing. Four years ago I was
arguing with Andrew Lavoie over his bogus "no white strips"
claim, and four years later Neil is trotting it out again. None
of you seems to have a clue what you are talking about and are a
total waste of time.


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