UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 29

Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Morris

From: Neil Morris <neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:09:28 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:40:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Morris


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:57:57 EDT
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:22:28 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Young


 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:03:42 -0700
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy

 >>>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

<snip>

  >>However, Moore does note that if he changed just one of his
  >>assumptions, the balloon could also have ended up about 150
  >>miles away:

 >>(p. 93) "If the balloons had not entered the stratosphere but
 >>had continued in the upper troposphere, _they would have passed
 >>17 miles south of the actual landing site and would have landed
 >>more than 150 miles to the east at the end of the [assumed] 343-
 >>minute flight."

 >>That would have put Flight 4 somewhere in southwest Kansas, not
 >>the Foster ranch. Where did you get the idea that Moore's
 >>analysis somehow proved that the balloons came down within 17
 >>miles of the ranch?


 >Hi David, Bruce:
 >
 >David goes on and on and on about his variables, assumptions,
 >mentions neightboring states, if this and that had been different.
 >
 >The problem with all of this is that no balloon train debris were
 >found in Kansas, but something very similar was found on the
 >Foster Ranch.
 >
 >
 >Ta, ta...
 >
 >Clear skies,
 >
 >Bob Young
 >

All,

The information regarding NYU Flight 4 is so minimal that I'm
sure it will continue to cause heated debate no doubt until the
cows eventually do come home. What has far more evidence, all be
it in witness testimony, are the alleged results of Flight 4's
demise, the debris field itself out there on the Foster Ranch.
So what can be and should be gleened from that.

I'm not going to re-print all the maths yet again, I've done it
several times and so has Dave Rudiak, but in essense, with the
exception of Sheridan Cavitt, the debris field is reported as
large, and if you calculate the amount of material required to
cover such an area even down to very minimal coverage densities
<1%, there is just not enough material in any known
configuration of balloons and ML307 radar targets used by the
NYU "MOGUL" team that could possibly account for the amount of
material reported by the majority of the witnesses.

If "x" amount of material went up with NYU Flight 4 then "x"
amount of material, less consumables would be expected to come
down. But doing the maths we find we are expected to believe
"xxxxxxx"of stuff actually came back down.

The conclusion being, sure Flight 4 could very well have crashed
out on the Foster Ranch, maybe even where Charles Moore claims
to have calculated it's crash point to be.

_But_, the debris field as described fairly consistantly by
multiple witnesses, including that given by Mack Brazel to the
Roswell Daily Record, while under alleged Army "hospitality",
all refute this, because the amount of debris required to create
a debris field as they describe is completely inconsistant with
what would be available at a downed "MOGUL" crash site.

There are photographs and film of "MOGUL" recoveries that do
support this point and show ballon/train landing sites as being
quite "compact" and certainly nothing on the scale of the
reported Foster Ranch debris field.


Neil




[ 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