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 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 15:21:56 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:17:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Rudiak

 >From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:00:53 -500
 >Fwd Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:20:39 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy - Hutchinson

 >>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:31:06 -500
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell 'Hieroglyph' Controversy

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

 >Oops! Not quite correct.....

 >Moore's recollections were that flight 4 was _tracked_ to within
 >17 miles of the impact site.

Correct. Thank you for admitting your error here.

Another mea culpa is also due from you for your claim that
Albert Crary's diary entry for Flight 4 documents that it was
tracked by radar, and by air no less. It does not. It was
speaking of the sonobuoy reception.

 >Moore's prediction of the flight
 >path and descent, done years later based on weather service
 >data, placed the impact "in the vicinity" of the actual site,
 >and much closer than the "17 miles" we have been bandying about.

Right. Moore made as many assumptions as necessary to drop
Flight 4 directly on Mack Brazel's head. That's the problem with
his "prediction." He did whatever was necessary to get the end
result he wanted and previously believed to be true. This is
considered to be very bad science. Scientific protocols are
intentionally designed to try to minimize the effects of wishful
thinking, hence, e.g., the use of double-blind experiments.

What Moore demonstrated was that Flight 4 could _possibly_ have
ended up on the Foster ranch given that his numerous assumptions
were _all_ true.

This, however, is not a very robust theory, since altering any
of these assumptions would place the balloons somewhere else,
sometimes very, very far away. As Moore himself noted, if the
balloons hadn't gotten to the maximum altitude he assumed, they
could have ended up in southwest Kansas.

However, the debunking community doesn't seem to realize (or
maybe care about) the shakiness of Moore's prediction, instead
twisting mostly guesswork into some sort of "scientific proof"
that Flight 4 ended up on the Foster Ranch.

A better, but much more complicated model, would take into
account the uncertainties in all the variables and create a
probabilistic model of where the balloon could have gone.
Perhaps the most probable region would have been near the Foster
Ranch. But I strongly suspect that such a model would probably
show a much higher probability of the balloons ending up
somewhere else.

One indication of this is from Mogul records themselves. Very
few Moguls with known trajectories strayed anywhere near the
Foster ranch. A vast majority were carried roughly eastward
towards the Roswell vicinity or southward by prevailing winds.
Of 52 recorded flights that I could find in reprinted Mogul
records in the 1995 AF Roswell report, only 2, or maybe 3 had
trajectories to the north or NE that took them to within 20 or
30 miles of the Foster ranch.

One notable instance of this was Flight #17 on Sept. 9, 1947,
which took a virtually identical northeasterly trajectory that
Moore claims for Flight #4, past all those small N.M. towns
which Moore associates with first hearing with Flight #4. Flight
#17 actually did end up in Kansas.

If Roswell debunkers can argue with a straight face that stories
of alien bodies in 1947 are explained by witnesses "time
compressing" "crash dummies" from the 1950s and 1960s, I think I
can argue with an even straighter face that maybe Moore is
confusing Flight #17 only 3 months later with what he thinks he
remembers for Flight #4.

 >As a side note; the orientation of the debris field predicted by
 >Moore matches Marcel's original description.

As another side note, Marcel described a debris distribution
exactly the opposite of what would be predicted for a Mogul
crash, namely the metallic debris was thickest to the northeast
and thinned out towards the southwest.

As still another side note, Marcel described a far more
extensive debris field than any Mogul could produce. In 1947, AP
stories seemingly quoted him as saying that debris was scattered
over a square mile. In interviews 30 years later, he said that
he and Cavitt were only able to pick up only a tiny part of it.
A Mogul would produce only a small fraction of that quantity of
debris. To think otherwise is like saying a few gum wrappers and
burst party balloons was sufficient to badly litter your

And of course, Marcel described highly anomalous debris
completely unlike anything a Mogul could produce -- "memory"
foil and fabric that couldn't be cut or burned, sticks that
couldn't be broken or burned, etc. Marcel wasn't the only one to
describe such properties. E.g., Brig. Gen. Arthur Exon was later
to confirm some of these anomalous properties from testing done
at Wright-Patterson labs and to state that Roswell was the crash
of a craft from space.

The point is, the orientation of the debris field was just one
small facet of Marcel's overall testimony of what he found. To
carefully choose the one the one detail that might match with a
debunking scenario while completely ignoring the rest that does
not is the very essence of pelicanism.

David Rudiak

[ 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