UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 26

Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Hutchinson

From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:31:06 -500
Fwd Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:48:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Hutchinson

 >From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:00:08 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy

 >>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:00:28 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Gates


Robert, Bob, and List;

 >>Isn't what happened that at 17 miles the balloon device dropped
 >>to an altitude that caused it to disappear from the radar set
 >>which was tracking it from White Sands, or wherever?

Tracked from Alamogorodo. Flight 4 was a calibration test, done
to evaluate the feasability of tracking these balloon systems
with radar. The data indicated that this was not going to work,
and the trailing bomber broke off soon after launch.


 >As I recall from the Moore account we only have one launch that
 >fits the bill so to speak. We also only have _one_ person, i.e.
 >Moore who says that his diary/journal claimed that a launch took
 >place on June 4th.

Actually, the diary in question was not Moore's, but Albert
Crary's, who was the on-site director of operations. So that
makes two people.

(Entry for Jun 4, 1947)"...Flew regular sono buoy up in cluster
of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on

Moore's recollections, given _before_ the diary was found, fit
Crary's entry.

 >As I recall we have no other records or
 >information that can be verified that in fact can confirm that a
 >balloon and package was even launched.

At least there _is_ a record- writen, verified as authentic, and
very solid. Remember that there are _no_ records of any kind
that can confirm that the Army Air Force recovered a saucer. :)

 >Moore came along a few years ago and ran an analysis based on
 >data obtained from the weather service about upper level wind
 >currents back in 1947. Based upon that analysis Moore was able
 >to get the alleged balloon/instrument package to approx 17 miles
 >of the ranch. Now I would point out that apparently nobody
 >independent of Moore has run an analysis of the same data, i.e.
 >upper air currents, payload etc etc.

This is correct... but note that the analysis of Moore's puts
flight #4 _within_ 17 miles, _not_ 17 miles "short"!

It is worth noting that this kind of analysis cannot, by any
stretch, provide a precise prediction- the kind that would
place Flight #4 exactly on Foster's Ranch.

Prof Moore was an ackowledged expert on meteorology, and it
would be very difficult to dispute his conclusions. However, if
you would like to get another opinion, you can get the weather
service data from Kevin Randle. He is the one who gave the data
to Prof Moore.

 >As I recall there was _no_ radar tracking data of that flight
 >what so ever.

Incorrect. Radar tracking by a trailing bomber was attempted,
(which was the purpose of the flight, and the reason it carried
Rawins) but the returns were very poor (Crary diary entry for
June 4). Moore recalled that the bomber broke off tracking very
soon after launch.

 >Apparently based upon that we have Moore pronouncement that the
 >package/balloon accounted for the debris field. In essence the
 >theory at best was 17 miles short.

Nope - the word "short" is incorrect. Moore prediction for
flight #4 said it should have landed "within" 17 miles of the
actual impact site.

Aside from that, 17 miles is amazingly close. Meterology is not
a precise science. Any expectations for more accuracy is just
wishful thinking.

 >I find it amusing that one one hand skeptibunkers will seize
 >upon a skeptical theory that at best is 17 miles short and
 >pronounce that as a valid, scientific explaination of what

Even more amusing is the notion that Moore's prediction, which
came within 17 miles, is somehow a shortcoming. Talk to any
meteorlogical expert (your local TV weather guy/gal would be a
good source) and I will predict that you will get the opinion
that Moore's data is very impressive evidence.

Even if you leave out Moore's recollections, the evidence is
very solid that Flight 4 was indeed launched. We can (I predict
we always will!) debate whether Brazel found rements of flight
4, or something else. But we should not be debating the
existance of Flight #4.


Bruce Hutchinson

[ 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