Roswell Proof: Where is it?

"If that's the case then why were there no cover stories or any special security measures taken with any other MOGUL balloons recovered by ordinary citizens?"

THAT"S BECAUSE THEY WEREN"T REPORTED IN THE WORLDWIDE PRESS AS A RECOVERED FLYING SAUCER!

The problem with this is the timing.

These extra steps (cordons) were taken BEFORE it was a press event, starting with July 5th. We see the first flights with debris occuring on July 6th according to military witnesses' corraborating testimony. This is still two days prior to the press release.

I don't even understand why anyone would want to refute the Roswell Incident. There's more than a wealth of information out there that points to an alien spacecraft crashing there. Go out, do some research, not JUST what the internet tells you. No point in going over this over and over again.

"THAT"S BECAUSE THEY WEREN"T REPORTED IN THE WORLDWIDE PRESS AS A RECOVERED FLYING SAUCER!" == Access Denied

Let's use a filter on that statement to eliminate the noise content. That gives us this :

Thats because they weren't reported in the PRESS.

Getting down to basics helps to see causality.

"I don't even understand why anyone would want to refute the Roswell Incident." == Masisoar

Precisely. There is NOTHING to refute. Until SOMETHING is proven, it is not real, a Myth.
The Myth began by ONE SINGLE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY, Marcel, whose testimony gave
pointers to historical evidence of US Army commentary on a "Disc". Can you imagine what the
Myth would be if other historical evidence could be assimilated and associated properly ?

"No point in going over this over and over again." == Masisoar

Have you ever done analysis work on a large data base ? That job requires the very point to be
repetitive, detailed, mundane examination.

"These extra steps (cordons) were taken BEFORE it was a press event, starting with July 5th." == Gazrok

Thats a real curio. So how did Mack get through the cordon to go see the Sheriff, et al ? And fail to even notice it ?


[edit on 6-9-2006 by nightwing]

[edit on 6-9-2006 by nightwing]

[edit on 6-9-2006 by nightwing]

I agree with what was put forth earlier about having a large database of information on ATS for Roswell. I'd be willing to contribute what I have.

Access Denied, will do definately

Give me a couple of months

[edit on 9/6/2006 by Masisoar]

"a) Prior to Robert Todd's 1992 "discovery" of this information apparently no other UFOlogist was aware of this?" == Access Denied

Let me take a crack at this one. By the mid 80's, there were few left in Ufology who had any interest in a man-made cause of Roswell.
I would guess that if Todd had not made the discovery of Mogul, it is unlikely any other Ufologist would have, either. By his own account,
even the Air Force has some trouble in this area because one of the classified archive losses in the 1973 archive fire was, you guessed it,
Project Mogul. The 1992 (?) US Air Force Report, I assume this to mean the mid-nineties response to Congressman Schiff, shows signs
of rather deep digging on the part of the Air Force to locate Mogul stuff. Perhaps because they lost the real stuff in a fire ?

The article you quoted says NOTHING about NYU personnel who were doing the TOP SECRET work. = AD

That's right Maj. Prichard wasn't being quite truthful with the press when he claimed it was his men in the Photo who were launching the Balloons. = lost_shaman

You think? = AD

No doubt few if any military or Watson Labs personnel at Alamogordo (and certainly not Roswell!) knew what the NYU personnel were REALLY up to at the time. This much is clear from the article you quoted. = AD

How is that clear? = lost_shaman

See above. = AD



See above?

What I wrote ? The above was taken right out of my previous post. ( Except the " You think? )





[edit on 6-9-2006 by lost_shaman]

Just curious, Access Denied.. are you pro-Saucer or Anti-Saucer?

Originally posted by Access Denied
Sorry, I was “creatively” equating your observation that "Maj. Prichard wasn't being quite truthful" about the purpose in the press with my assertion that few if any personnel at Alamogordo likely knew the true nature of the project...

I wasn't saying he wasn't being truthful about the purpose. The purpose is Top Secret and would have been illegal to disclose. He wasn't being truthful to the press when he said his men in the photo were the ones launching the Balloons.

And you said "few Watson Labs personnel at Alamogordo" knew what NYU was doing which is what I was addressing. Just to clarify.

Roswell Proof - Suggested Method One, Selective (Failure to prove does not necessarily mean
the opposite is proven.)

Type of proof: Legal Proof, using credible testimony and supporting facts, documents, etc.

Assumption used - a military cordon, if actually proven to be present, would negate all denials of
something "strange" happening there. If a military cordon was there and was NOT legally approved
in violation of PCA (act of Congress), then mandantory penalties apply through Congressional authority.

Proof Method : Credible Testimony which POINTS to identification of the cordon folks, origination,
unit, names or other data that can be used to research and verify the cordon. Alternative testimony from a
member of the CORDON GROUP, who can point to the identification of the organization, and other supporting
details for research. Any such testimony is legal even if the member was under secrecy orders, because
the potential for violation of Congressional authority is present. Verification of such testimony via researched
document/factual historical supporting documentation would be sufficient to obtain Congressional action/oversite.

AD, I'm still waiting for the explanation of why some pencil pusher(in MAC) who wouldn't have had anything to do with debris recovery and was lounging at the post swimming hole meant that nothing happened that day.
And stop with the cryptic bluffs and inuendoes. If you got a hand then throw it down.
The chips are pilin up.

Thats a real curio. So how did Mack get through the cordon to go see the Sheriff, et al ? And fail to even notice it ?

Different crash site. The cordon on the 5th was for the second site (referenced also in Ramey's memo). On the 5th, Mac had just taken the debris to some neighbors. The larger pieces of debris were found at the second site.

Mac took his debris into town on the 6th. Later on the 6th, Cavitt and Marcel from the base escort Mac back to the ranch (but stay overnight at a nearby ranch, as it's quite late when they get near there...it is about 75 miles away after all). By this point, the main recovery of the other site was completed.

The recovery of the Brazel site takes place on the 7th.

The recovery of the Brazel site takes place on the 7th. == Gazrok

It is reasonable to infer that much from the Roswell Daily Record on TUESDAY, 8 July. But even that assumption must
be identified as such. I am well aware of your Roswell series, and have avoided detracting from it by challenging commentary
because it is such an excellent reference for the "MODERN" version of Roswell. The thread title here seems to me to
demand "PROOF" of some sort, if we can find it or figure a way to get it.

So far in this thread, there is only ONE example of legal, correlated "Proof". Marcel's 1978 testimony that "something" happened
at Roswell when he was there (Testimony points to correlatable research) and the newspaper article his testimony has taken us to
is acknowledgable, legally, as evidence of "something". The Myth just takes wings after that. What we need is a SINGLE
additional testimony concerning your cordon which contains the pointer or pointers for correlating it with real factual data.
Without that, we can discuss miscellaneous research findings and speculation of same forever, and just create better stories as time
goes by. Wheels within wheels, and they are always rolling but getting NOWHERE. Traction we need, proof, nothing less.

For evidence for the cordon, what about:

*Dr. C. Bertram Schultz?

*Bud Payne?

*George "Jud" Roberts?

*Robin Adair?

Much of the questioning of the eyewitness testimony seems to be nitpicking. For example, it is said that Robert Smith's testimony is "contradictory." Contradictory to whom? Frank Kaufmann, a man no serious researcher takes seriously? Or is it contradictory because a C-54 could not land at Kirtland at the time? Kirtland was used for training "...2,195 pilots, bombardiers, and navigator trainees for the new B-17 'Flying Fortress.'"

www.kirtland.af.mil...

The C-54 is a smaller plane than the B-17 in terms of wingspan and weight which tells me that a C-54 could have landed there in 1947. Even if it had been a different plane, does it really matter? Finding problems with trivial things like the type of plane is just nitpicking.

The normal operating weight of a C-54 (Loaded weight: 62,000 lb)
was less than the gross weight of a B-17 and a C-54 was quite capable of operating from Kirtland AFB with no problem since aircraft normally don't always takeoff at gross weight anyway.

en.wikipedia.org...

Tim Printy doesn't know what he is talking about and I have dealt with him before. He still claims that Mogul balloon train #4 was responsible for the Roswell incident even though that balloon train flight was cancelled and never flown and that is the reason why there are no flight records for Mogul balloon train #4, but apparently, Tim Printy seems to have been unaware of that fact but then again, Mr. Printy seems to be unaware of many things as they relate to UFO reality.

How come Tim Printy never knew that the first atomic bomb, "Fat Man" was flown out of Kirtland AFB to Tinian on what? A C-54! As far as components for "Little Boy" were concerned, three parts were flown out of Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque on three C-54 transport planes, which arrived July 28 at Tinian.

Just goes to show that using Tim Printy as a reference has its risk and no small ones at that!



[edit on 10-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Access Denied,

Technically Roswell is a case of unsolved History. One need not be a conspiracy theorist per se.

Once we've decided or proved Frank Kaufmann was hoaxing his involvement , then from a Historical perspective we have to discount any arguments based on other witness' that contradict Frank Kaufmann's story. Those arguments are null and void.

Ofcourse we've gone over this exact same point dealing with Smith supposedly contradicting Kaufmann on page 8.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The question I have , is why are you still using it?

Originally posted by Access Denied

Where did you get “NYU” from (highlighted in bold) that YOU inserted next to Watson Labs? Watson Labs is not NYU. The connection to NYU and MOGUL wasn’t made until 1992 by Robert Todd and later by the AF itself.

May I suggest that you don't use Robert Todd as a reference either. He is just as bad at not doing his homework properly anymore than Tim Printy.

No Mogul balloon train was responsible for the Roswell incident and that is the main reason why you can find no Mogul balloon flight records for balloon train #4 because it was cancelled and the next balloon flight in line was balloon train #5, which there are records for because it flew unlike balloon train #4. Add to the fact that not one single piece of a Mogul balloon train was ever reported recovered on the Foster ranch and Moore stated that balloon train #4 was identical to #2, yet with all of that equipment installed and all of those balloons, none were recovered.

Apparently, Robert Todd and Tim Printy seemed to have overlooked some very important facts as they relate to Project Mogul and that was their big mistake.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Let me take a crack at this one. By the mid 80's, there were few left in Ufology who had any interest in a man-made cause of Roswell.
I would guess that if Todd had not made the discovery of Mogul, it is unlikely any other Ufologist would have, either. By his own account,
even the Air Force has some trouble in this area because one of the classified archive losses in the 1973 archive fire was, you guessed it,
Project Mogul. The 1992 (?) US Air Force Report, I assume this to mean the mid-nineties response to Congressman Schiff, shows signs
of rather deep digging on the part of the Air Force to locate Mogul stuff. Perhaps because they lost the real stuff in a fire ?

All the Air Force had to do was to go here to get the facts. Note the balloon trains in the photos and also, note the dates.

roswellproof.homestead.com...

The Air Force knew that no Mogul balloon train was involved in the Roswell incident. The Air Force never told the public that Mogul balloon trains were occasionally recovered by civilians, such as Rancher Sid West, and that Mogul balloon trains were not classified. In fact, they were sometimes left out in open fields and in one case, one was left lying next to a road where it was vandalized.

Another Mogul balloon snagged itself on the roof of a tavern at Flat Bush, New Jersey as many of the local population watched as a policeman attempted to recover the contraption. Where's the cover stories for those recoveries? The answer is, there were none and there was never a reason to cover-up the recovery of a downed Mogul balloon train.

What the Air Force also failed to tell the public in its 1994 Roswell Report, is that Mogul balloon trains had reward tags, questionaires, and identification tags attached to the apparatus. The questionaires attached to Mogul balloon trains got ordinary civlians without securtiy clearances who recovered downed Mogul balloon trains to become involved and add their imputs such as the location and time of the recovery and the rate of decent of the balloon trains.

What the Air Force also failed to tell the public was that the Mogul and Skyhook balloon teams had recorded UFOs over their positions as well.


Project Mogul UFO Sightings

"One of the ironies of using Project Mogul to try to explain away the Roswell case and other New Mexico sightings is that Mogul and later Skyhook balloon personnel themselves contributed many high-quality UFO sightings."

"One very famous Mogul sighting involved Charles Moore on April 24, 1949. An additional irony here is that this is the same Charles Moore that has been trying so hard in the present-day to debunk the Roswell case as one of his Mogul balloons. Moore's sighting was written up in the equally famous 1952 LIFE Magazine article of high-quality UFO reports and in a 1950 TRUE Magazine article by Naval Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, head of the Naval missile program at White Sands (who unequivocally stated that the flying saucers being spotted by White Sands personnel, including himself, were not only real but extraterrestrial in origin)."

"Moore's sighting is also found in a number of government documents, including those of the CIA, whose scientists were very impressed by it."

roswellproof.homestead.com...

[edit on 10-9-2006 by skyeagle409]

Originally posted by Access Denied
Let me guess, now you're going to come back here and "flood" (see ATS T&C) this thread with same old stuff over and over again and not cite your sources like you did before?

It was no secret that C-54's operated out of Kirtland AFB from time to time and in fact, the C-54 could take off in a shorter distance at its normal operating weight than a B-17 at its gross weight and as I mentioned before, aircraft normally don't always operate at their full gross weight. I also mentioned Crary's record as well where he specifically stated that Mogul balloon flight #4 was cancelled and to underline my point once again, the proof lies in the fact that no fligth records exist for balloon train #4 because its flight was cancelled and never flown.

You can "Google" all over the internet but you are not going to find any flight records for that balloon train, but flight records do exist for Mogul balloon flight #5 and others but not for balloon train #4. Go to Tim Printy and challenge him to come up with flight records for #4. I bet my last dollar he won't supply you with any because there are none for him to supply.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Are you saying the manufacturer (Boeing) is wrong and Wikipedia is right? Looks like you're the one who should be more careful about what sources you use.
Boeing lists the gross weight (see post above) as 82,500 lb. Sorry.

I'm not because it doesn't matter. Even the C-141 had variations in gross takeoff weights. The question was, were C-54's capable of operating out of Kirtland AFB and the fact was, they did operate out of Kirtland AFB from time to time and Tim Printy overlooked that fact. All he had to do was to check the history books.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by skyeagle409]