There, fixed it like a good proofreader should. 
Posted on 01/17/2009 1:52:28 PM PST by JoeProBono
CHAMA, NM - Several meandering V-shaped UFOs near a mountain slope here turned up on a woman's digital photos. Three photos shot with a 21 megapixel camera caught multiple crafts approaching in the first frame, one craft in frame two moving close to the ground while the others take positions in the sky, and then frame three shows all of the crafts moving out of the area.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I think you’ve reached the furthest depths possible
and yet again I’m surprised at
how horribly embarrassing some of your assertions must be for you.
Incredible.
Which part of
“I was a Radioman in the Navy (E-5) with crypto clearance and training”
do you not understand?
Of course I understand about declassification.
I can no longer quote the manuals regarding such but I certainly was quite familiar with such. There wasn’t much else to do but read them in one of my duty station watch positions.
Yet again,
YOUR OUTRAGEOUS ASSUMPTIONS
are horribly WRONG.
NOW, NOW, DEAR HEART!
How dare you be so unkind as to
try and confuse the naysayers with FACTS!
LOL.
/sar
As I understand it, naysayers have a terminal
and horrific allergy
to facts.
What interesting irrationality.
Evidently there’s an expectation that I’ll believe someone’s thoroughly clueless rants so obviously out of touch with all evidence and reality
vs
my close relative who worked around the stuff.
What a hard decision! Oh me! Oh my!
/sar
Sounds like your relative was eager to blow the conspiracy wide open. What sort of evidence did he/she manage to sneak out of the top secret bunker to support his/her claim?
Naw.
He was a lot more chicken than that.
He was interviewed once by a famous researcher but he really didn’t have anything to share that wasn’t already shared by a lot of others in the field.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
full text:
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1782.html
SOME EXCERPTS OF:
Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery
Revised edition, © 1997 by Daniel Drasin. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without express permission from the author, ddrasin@aol.com
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
It’s a great article on the topic. I’m currently emailing him with a request to post the whole article.
Here’s a few paragraphs:
INTRODUCTION
So you’ve had a close encounter with a UFO. Or a serious interest in the subject of extramundane life. Or a passion for following clues that seem to point toward the existence of a greater reality. Mention any of these things to most working scientists and be prepared for anything from patronizing skepticism to merciless ridicule. After all, science is supposed to be a purely hardnosed enterprise with little patience for “expanded” notions of reality. Right?
Wrong.
Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a profoundly expansive, liberating impulse at its core. This “Zen” in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the nature of things with “beginner’s mind.” When this is done, reality can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly. Appropriate testing and objective validation can—indeed, *must*—come later.
Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized “scientific truth.” As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
What is “debunkery?” Essentially it is the attempt to *debunk* (invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scient*istic* propaganda for the scient*ific* method.
It’s worth a read.
FROM:
http://www.cufos.org/ros4.html
PLEASE READ AT THE SITE . . . IT HAS THE FIGURES ETC. IN USEFUL FORM.
AN ENGINEER LOOKS AT THE PROJECT MOGUL HYPOTHESIS
An Engineer Looks at the
Project Mogul Hypothesis
by Robert A. Galganski
In early July 1947, Mac Brazel, foreman of the Foster sheep ranch northwest of Roswell, New Mexico, discovered a large quantity of extremely unusual, widely scattered, and highly fragmented lightweight debris on a pasture. The Army initially attributed it to the misidentified remnants of a downed weather balloon and an attached radar target. Forty-seven years later, the Air Force explained the debris as similar wreckage from a top-secret Project Mogul balloon train.
More than three years have passed since I first examined the debris-field issue quantitatively in “The Roswell Debris: A Quantitative Evaluation of the Project Mogul Hypothesis,” IUR, March/April 1995. This article updates my initial research.
The debris field
Most of the debris consisted of lightweight, thin-gage, flat or slightly curved, sheetlike fragments exhibiting physical properties atypical of late-1940s technology. There appears to have been two distinct types at the site: (1) foil-like pieces easily crumpled by hand which completely recovered their original shape and showed no signs of wrinkling when released; and (2) pieces which could not be deformed or damaged by any means, even when whacked with a 16-pound sledgehammer. I refer to both kinds of debris, which would not burn, as thin-shell material. (Common thin-shell products—which do not possess such extraordinary deformation characteristics—include Saran wrap, balloon film, aluminum foil, and motor-vehicle and aircraft body panels.)
Major Jesse Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group based at Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF), inspected the site shortly after Brazel reported the debris to the Chaves County sheriff in Roswell. Marcel described a big field: debris “. . . about as far as you could see—three quarters [of a] mile long and two hundred to three hundred feet wide.” It was “scattered all over—just like you’d explode something above the ground and [it would] just fall to the ground.” The shortest pieces were “four or five inches. It was [as if it were from] something of some greater area that had been together.”
A rectangular field shape is implicit—but by no means certain—in Marcel’s description. For that configuration, the debris would have littered an area equal to 250 ft (average width) x 4,000 ft (about ¾ of a mile) long = 1,000,000 ft2 (nearly 23 acres).
Methodology for quantitatively evaluating the Mogul hypothesis
Evaluating the Mogul hypothesis quantitatively constitutes a three-step process.
1. Estimate the quantity of unusual thin-shell material on the field.
2. Determine the quantity of material(s) contained in a Mogul balloon train that could have been the source of the extraordinary debris.
3. Compare the two numbers. The comparison provides a numerical indication of how good—or how bad— the Mogul explanation is.
To carry out the first step in the evaluation process, I had to formulate a mathematical model of the debris field. Its development is detailed in my 1995 IUR article, but a brief description is provided below.
Debris-field model
The debris-field model uses surface area to estimate the quantity of unconventional thin-shell material on the Foster ranch. Surface areas of other debris forms that covered significantly less of the field are neglected.
To simplify the analysis, the field is represented mathematically as a flat plain with flat shell fragments distributed over it in a variable, two-dimensional pattern. One very small region near one (the presumed front) edge of the field is assumed to have a moderately dense debris concentration—20% ground coverage. (The actual site must have featured at least one, fairly large region of closely packed debris because the sheep refused to cross it; they had to be driven around it.) The density drops off rapidly away from this location, exhibiting an extremely spotty coverage over the rest of the simulated pasture.
The unknown debris distribution is approximated by equations which attempt to simulate the major elements contained in the most reliable first-statement, firsthand, and secondhand witness testimony. My objective was to generate a conservative approximation of that pattern—one that would estimate the smallest possible amount of on-ground thin-shell material—to minimize the risk of unfairly biasing the evaluation outcome against the Mogul hypothesis.
Consistent with that approach and for additional reasons discussed in the 1995 article, I selected a parabola instead of a rectangle as the most plausible debris-field shape. The model’s parabolic field has the same overall dimensions described by Major Marcel: 250 feet wide (at its far end) by 4,000 feet long. But it encompasses only 667,000 ft2 (about 15 acres) of pasture, 33% less ground area than that contained in the rectangular configuration.
Initial evaluation: Mogul Flight 9
In the fall of 1994 the Air Force posited that Mogul Flight 4 was the source of the debris on the Foster ranch. That explanation seemed so improbable I applied my newly developed model to a different balloon train, Flight 9. Researcher Karl Pflock, in his 1994 monograph, Roswell in Perspective, speculated that the debris was merely polyethylene (plastic) balloon fragments from downed balloons comprising that aborted experiment. My analysis showed that if all the balloons in Flight 9 had landed and shredded at the site, nearly four such trains would be needed to generate enough debris to litter 15 acres of ranch land.
Then, in his 1997 book UFO Crash at Roswell: The Genesis of a Modern Myth, coauthor and former Mogul project engineer Charles B. Moore revealed that Flight 9 actually used neoprene (synthetic rubber) balloons. Since Flight 9 was thus eliminated as a candidate debris-field causative agent, I took another look at the Flight 4 hypothesis.
Updated evaluation: Mogul Flight 4
According to Charles Moore, Flight 4 consisted of 28 neoprene, meteorological-sounding (i.e., weather) balloons attached to a 600-foot-long master line of braided nylon cord, three ML-307B rawin radar targets, possibly one or more silk-canopy parachutes, and a variety of test equipment such as a sonobuoy microphone, radio transmitter, dry cells, and plastic containers holding solid and liquid ballast. All components and systems were ordinary off-the-shelf items; only the Mogul program objective was classified.
A possible debris deposition scenario. It’s absolutely inconceivable—to me and many other Roswell researchers, anyway—that anybody could have mistaken pieces of neoprene balloon film (either in its brand-new flexible and tan-colored condition or its brittle, dark-colored, and sun-deteriorated state) and silk fabric for either one of the two highly unconventional shell-like materials described earlier. By the process of elimination, that leaves the radar targets as the only possible Flight 4 source for the thinshell fragments found at the site.
|Fig. 1. Drawing of a rawin radar target used in some |Project Mogul balloon train launches, including |Flight 4. __________________________________ The rawin targets. Figure 1 presents a drawing of a rawin radar target. According to Moore
(personal correspondence dated March 31, 1995), “These targets consisted of nine right-triangular segments with 24-inch-long bases and heights. Each segment consisted of a panel of aluminum foil laminated to some fairly tough, heavy-duty paper and deployed on balsa wood struts.” (Moore is also on record saying that the struts were coated with glue to stiffen and render them noncombustible.)
Moore recently told Roswell researcher Robert J. Durant that each target was constructed of only seven triangular segments having the same dimensions given above. I elected to use nine triangles—yielding a single-target surface area of 18 ft2—in order to maximize the total amount of Mogul-supplied thin-shell material. This gives the benefit of the doubt to—and helps—the Mogul hypothesis.
Gut feeling. The reported amount and physical characteristics of the highly fragmented debris, along with its widespread distribution at the ranch site, is inconsistent with wreckage that could have come from a Mogul balloon train.
Figure 2 presents an official July 8, 1947, Army photo of (primarily) rawin radar target wreckage. How anybody could have mistaken the badly wrinkled and torn aluminum foil/paper laminate—white paper can be seen peeling away from the foil!—and broken balsa-wood sticks for the allegedly extraordinary debris is beyond comprehension.
A recent series of experiments proved that the thin-strut fragments found at the site were not glue-coated balsa-wood sticks from radar targets (see “The Glue Explanation Just Won’t Stick,” IUR, Winter 1997–98). It follows that the unusual thin-shell material also found there was something other than the metalized paper used in target construction.
Common sense, logic, a massive body of corroborative anecdotal evidence, and limited but fundamentally sound and persuasive empirical data and observations lead to an inescapable conclusion: Mogul Flight 4 was not responsible for the debris field.
___________________________________
Fig. 1. Drawing of a rawin radar target used in some Project Mogul balloon train launches, including Flight 4.
A quantitative assessment. The quantitative evaluation methodology outlined earlier will now be applied to Mogul Flight 4. The objective: Ascertain if there was enough thin-shell material in that balloon train to account for the reportedly unusual shell-like stuff on the Foster ranch site. As noted previously, the radar-target laminate—aluminum foil bonded to paper—was the only possible source for that type of material.
Let Area 1 denote the model-estimated surface area of on-ground, thin-shell debris. This parameter, calculated in my initial study (and still applicable), is equal to 6,880 ft2.
To give the Mogul hypothesis a fighting chance, assume that all three targets landed on the pasture and were broken apart and shredded into pieces of varying size. The total laminate surface area (Area 2) is equal to 3 targets ´ 18 ft2 / target = 54 ft2.
Compare the two surface areas by dividing Area 1 by Area 2. We obtain 6,880 ft2 ¸ 54 ft2 = 127.4. This number tells us that it would take more than 127 Flight 4 balloon trains — more than 381 radar targets — to litter the field! Mercy.
Model accuracy. Obviously we can’t validate the accuracy of the above finding. But a crude, indirect measure of the model’s simulation capability can be defined: C—the overall debris coverage ratio. This parameter is equal to the total model-generated surface area of on-ground, thin-shell material fragments divided by the total field ground area. A reasonably accurate model will have a C value roughly similar to that which could (theoretically) be computed for the actual site.
We can safely assume that the Foster ranch debris field consisted of mostly open range, with individual pieces or clusters of debris scattered over it. Since there had to be sufficient thin-shell material available to create at east one densely packed region as well as to define the perimeter of the vast area described by Marcel, a value of C between 0.01 and 0.10—i.e., between one to ten percent coverage—appears reasonable.
The model’s debris coverage density is 6,880 ft2 ¸ 667,000 ft2 = 0.0103 (1.03% overall coverage)—at the lower end of the arbitrary acceptable range. Nearly 99% of the simulated field is debris-free or uncovered, confirming the desired conservative nature of the model.
Summing up. My mathematical analysis indicated better than a two order-of-magnitude disparity between the amount of thin-shell material on the ground (by all accounts—a lot) and what Mogul Flight 4 could have supplied (very little). This enormous difference provides a comfortable margin for error. For example, even if the model’s surface-area estimate is off (too high) by a factor of 10, it would still require nearly 13 balloon trains (via 688 ft2 ¸ 54 ft2) or 39 targets to generate the shredded shell fragments found at the site.
Still think that a single balloon train caused the Roswell debris?
Gigo?
Roswell detractors might say that my analysis is flawed because decades-old eyewitness testimony is factored into the debris-field model. Because Major Marcel’s large field-size estimate constitutes a vital input to the model, it is a likely target for critics. They might claim that he grossly overestimated the field size, resulting in a classic case of GIGO—garbage input (a grievously poor field-area estimate) generating garbage output (the 127-plus-balloon train result). The merits of this charge can be checked out by doing a simple what-if analysis.
Table 1. What-if Analysis for the Only Possible (and Highly Suspect) Mogul Flight 4 Debris-deposition Scenario
L,
Parabola-shaped
Field Length (ft) Debris-field Area
A= 2/3(250L)
M,
Model-predicted, On-ground, Thin-shell Material Surface Area (ft2) N P(%)
(ft2) (acres)
4,000
2,000
1,000
250 667,000
333,000
167,000
41,700 15.3
7.6
3.8
1.0 6,880
3,500
1,810
540 127.4
64.8
33.5
10.0 0.8
1.5
3.0
10.0
Notes:
(1) N is the number of Flight 4 balloon trains needed to litter the field with radar target laminate. N = M/R,
where R = 54 ft 2 is the total laminate surface area comprising three rawin radar targets.
(2) P = ( R/M )100% is the percentage of on-ground, thin-shell debris that a single
Flight 4 (three radar targets) can account for.
What-if analysis for the Mogul Flight 4 hypothesis
Assume that Major Marcel overestimated the length of the debris field. The effects of such an error on the model’s output and associated hypothesis evaluation outcome are examined by varying the length of its parabola-shaped field.
Calculations and commentary. Table 1 presents the results of the analysis for several field lengths ranging from Marcel’s 4,000-foot estimate to 250 feet. The width of the field is held constant (at 250 feet) for the sake of simplicity.
Figure 3 illustrates the relative sizes of the four field lengths considered.
Table 1 lists the field ground area A and the amount of thin-shell material M on it (columns two and three, respectively) for each field length L considered (column 1). The fourth column shows the number of Mogul Flight 4 balloon trains N needed to supply the thin-shell material for each parabola consistent with the model-predicted surface area (see note 1 beneath the table). Finally, the last column lists values of P (the inverse of N); it tells us what percentage of the model-estimated surface area one balloon train could have supplied (see note 2).
If the field was only half as long as Marcel thought it was, N decreases from more than 127 to about 65 while P increases from 0.8 to 1.5. If he erred by a factor of four (i.e., L = 1,000 feet)—a seemingly high but possible error—N decreases to more than 33 while P rises to only 3.0%. These results indicate that a significantlyerror doesn’t help the Mogul hypothesis very much. smaller field within the range of possible human
Figure 3. Relative sizes of the parabolic debris fields examined in the what-if analysis. Each parabola is 250 feet
wide at its far end.
The smallest length listed in Table 1—250 feet —assumes that Marcel completely butchered his estimate, imagining the debris to be scattered over an area 16 times longer than it actually was. Even for this mind-numbing scenario—a pasture with less area than a football field—it would still take 10 Mogul Flight 4 launches to supply the thin-shell material found on the ground. Alternatively, one Mogul train would account for only 10% of the debris.
One final note. The Air Force claimed in its 1994 report that the debris was strewn over a circular area 200 yards (600 feet) in diameter. (A July 9, 1947, story in the Roswell Daily Record, attributed to an interview with Mac Brazel in the newspaper’s office, is the basis for that contention.) My model cannot simulate a circular debris field, so we can’t evaluate the Mogul hypothesis for this pattern using a model-generated M value in the methodology employed above. However, we can make a ballpark-type estimate using information provided in Table 1.
The table shows that a 2,000-foot-long parabola has an area of 333,000 ft2—just 18% more than the 283,000 ft2 in a 200-yard-diameter circle—and that it would take nearly 65 Flight 4 balloon trains to deposit debris over that narrow strip of land. The number of Mogul balloon trains required to deposit enough thin-shell material to outline the perimeter of a 200-yard-diameter area can be crudely approximated by scaling that number using the ground area ratio of the two field shapes. We get (283,000 ft2 / 333,000 ft2) ´ 65 = 55 balloon trains—admittedly a very rough estimate. However, its double-digit magnitude—and attendant large allowable margin for error—indicates that even the Air Force’s own explanation doesn’t fit the Mogul hypothesis.
Reduced-size field coverage ratios. Using the terms defined in Table 1, the previously discussed field coverage ratio can be expressed as C = M / A. C corresponding to field lengths L = 2,000, 1,000, and 250 feet is equal to 0.0105, 0.0108, and 0.0129, respectively, indicating that the smaller fields are also about 99% debris free. The values of N and P listed in Table 1 are thus—at the very least—reasonable first-approximation type estimates.
Summary and conclusion
A mathematical model idealized the debris field as a variable-length, parabola-shaped region sparsely covered with fragments of an extraordinary thin-shell material.
It was assumed that Mogul Flight 4 created the debris field, leaving behind metalized-paper, rawin-radar-target remnants having a known total surface area.
Model-predicted and Mogul Flight 4-supplied thin-shell material surface areas were compared. One Mogul balloon train could account for only an extremely small fraction of the reported debris, even if Major Jesse Marcel had badly overestimated the field size.
Clearly, Project Mogul Flight 4 could not have been responsible for the debris found on the Foster ranch. Indeed, the analysis illustrates in a most compelling fashion just how absurd the Air Force’s Mogul hypothesis really is.
Editor’s Note: Robert A. Galganski has a master’s degree in civil engineering and is employed as a ground vehicle crash safety systems research and development specialist. He received the Ufologist of the Year award at the 1997 National UFO Conference in Springfield, Ohio, for his contributions to Roswell Incident research. Article from the International UFO Reporter, Summer 1998, Volume 23, Number 2.
Copyright Ó 1997-2004 CUFOS. All rights reserved
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without written permission.
Summary and conclusion
A mathematical model idealized the debris field as a variable-length, parabola-shaped region sparsely covered with fragments of an extraordinary thin-shell material.
It was assumed that Mogul Flight 4 created the debris field, leaving behind metalized-paper, rawin-radar-target remnants having a known total surface area.
Model-predicted and Mogul Flight 4-supplied thin-shell material surface areas were compared. One Mogul balloon train could account for only an extremely small fraction of the reported debris, even if Major Jesse Marcel had badly overestimated the field size.
Clearly, Project Mogul Flight 4 could not have been responsible for the debris found on the Foster ranch. Indeed, the analysis illustrates in a most compelling fashion just how absurd the Air Force’s Mogul hypothesis really is.
Editor’s Note: Robert A. Galganski has a master’s degree in civil engineering and is employed as a ground vehicle crash safety systems research and development specialist. He received the Ufologist of the Year award at the 1997 National UFO Conference in Springfield, Ohio, for his contributions to Roswell Incident research. Article from the International UFO Reporter, Summer 1998, Volume 23, Number 2.
EXCERPTS FROM
Staton Friedman’s file from here:
http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-ufo-why1.html
THE UFO “WHY” QUESTIONS:
THE UFO “WHY?” QUESTIONS
1. WHY have you concluded that the evidence is overwhelming that Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled Extraterrestrial Spacecraft?
The simplest answer is that it is the only conclusion merited by the enormous amount of evidence. In my lectures I review 5 large scale scientific studies and ask after each one how many have read it. Typically fewer than 2% have read any. I note the 5000-plus physical trace cases that Ted Phillips has collected from over 70 countries. In these people see a craft land and then take off leaving behind various markings on the soil such as burn circles, landing gear marks, small footprints, dried out rings of soil, etc. These are not crop circles where normally no saucer is seen. About 1/6 of these cases involve reports of small beings. I refer to the more than 1000 abduction cases that have been investigated by Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs, John Mack, and Raymond Fowler and the Betty and Barney Hill case as recorded by John G. Fuller. I review the outstanding work by Marjorie Fish clearly indicating that Betty’s star map makes sense and provides information not previously known to us. Furthermore, I have spent time at 20 archives, had a security clearance for 14 years, and find it perfectly obvious that crucial data has been withheld and many government people have lied with regard to UFOs. Saying some UFOs are of ET origin, of course, doesn’t answer other questions such as WHY are aliens coming here, WHY haven’t I seen one, where are they from, etc., etc.
2. WHY don’t the aliens, if they are real, just land on the White House lawn and say “Take me to your leader.”?
Obviously I don’t speak for any aliens. However, let us note three facts:
A. The White House is in a forbidden flying zone. Our response to intruders in such zones is to take immediate action to escort the intruders away or shoot them down. As far back as the summer of 1952 when, in July, UFOs did fly over the White House, orders were given to military interceptors to shoot down UFOs if they don’t land when instructed to do so. This is described in detail in Frank Feschino Jr.’s new book “Shoot Them Down.” Major General Roger Ramey proclaimed that interceptors had been scrambled hundreds of times without any luck. As an indication of the zeal of pilots, I have heard of at least 7 specific cases in which the UFOs zapped attacking earthling aircraft. Tim Good in his new book “Need to Know” recounts similar cases. I am working on a claim by a pilot that UFOs took out 20 of our planes in Europe in the early 1950s.
B. It may come as a surprise to many Americans, but the President of the USA doesn’t speak for Planet Earth. After all who elected him World President? Certainly not the billion people from India or the 1.3 billion people in China. Obviously the UN also does not speak for Planet Earth, either.
C. Normally, negotiations only take place between roughly equal parties. Surely it is not difficult to see that aliens have technology far in advance of earthling technology. Their vehicles are clearly faster, more maneuverable, and have access to huge space carriers (mother ships) with lord-knows-what capability. They have no reason to negotiate when they can already do what they please.
. . .
4. WHY is the government not telling what it knows?
Are they afraid of War of the Worlds panic? I hardly think so. After all, New Jersey was being destroyed by Martians. What could we do against them? Panic was not inappropriate. First we have to recognize there is a Cosmic Watergate and a long history of government lies about UFOs such as I described in Ref. 1, which lists lies from the FBI, CIA, USAF, NSA, etc. Some want to insist that (A) governments can’t keep secrets, and (B) the real secret is that they don’t know what is going on and can’t admit that either.
I disagree with both. A few examples of secret-keeping that have leaked out: The Manhattan Engineering District employed 130,000 people to develop the atomic bomb at a cost of several billion dollars in total secrecy during World War II. The Allies broke the German code during World War II and had 12,000 people working at Bletchley Park in the UK intercepting, decoding and translating German military communications. If the secret had come out, the Germans would have changed their codes. There was really nothing in public until 25 years later despite the obviously great improvements in technology. We also had broken the Japanese military codes — again in secret. With regard to B, note that the military agencies have monitoring systems that provide far more information than we civilians can obtain — and in secret.
The Naval Research Laboratory finally admitted in 1995 that it had launched a bunch of Corona electromagnetic intelligence satellites to monitor Soviet radar and communications systems starting in 1960, after 12 secret failures. The first one that worked provided more data than all the previous secret U-2 flights that preceded it. The Soviets knew about the U-2, but dared not admit that they couldn’t do anything about it. The American people had not been informed. Similarly the Soviets had shot down a number of military reconnaissance aircraft probing Russia, North Korea, and China causing the loss of 166 crew members. Their families were lied to: unfortunate accident, crashed at sea, etc. It was not until 2001 that the USA had a meeting with families of the crew members that they were told what happened, even though most of the losses occurred in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Medals were distributed. William Burrows tells the story in his book “By Any Means Necessary” (Ref. 2).
The National Reconnaissance Office first admitted in 2005 that it had launched 7 Poppy satellites between 1962 and 1971. Their function was to conduct very sophisticated monitoring of electronic and radar installations on Soviet ships. Thousands of people were involved.
So yes, indeed, secrets can be kept. The annual US Black Budget is estimated at 30-40 billion dollars. That is a lot of secrecy.
So WHY keep UFOs secret?
A. All major countries and many terrorist groups would very much like to duplicate the flight technology of the saucers. They can literally fly circles around our vehicles, move at very high speed, make right angle turns, move straight up and down — typically with little noise, no visible engines, no exhaust. They would make wonderful weapons delivery and defensive systems. Since we have recovered wreckage at least as early as 1947 (see “Crash at Corona”, Ref. 3) we would have set up a highly classified project (call it Operation Majestic 12 as described in my book “TOP SECRET/MAJIC” (Ref. 4)) to try both to evaluate the wreckage and to obtain measurements of flight characteristics using airborne and spaceborne and earth-based radar sets, cameras, electromagnetic sensors, and other instrumentation. Surely governments have very much more sophisticated instruments and observation platforms than do private individuals. The key rule here is that one can’t tell one’s friends without telling one’s enemies. It appears that there have been many UFO crashes including ones overseas (Varginha, Brazil, for example). There is a long history of countries gathering and evaluating crashed vehicles of their enemies. This does not require a conspiracy; everybody has the same self interest concerns.
B. Each country worries about its enemies determining the secrets of saucer technology before they do and must be concerned about how to defend against new vehicles and also how to learn what the other guy has already learned. Soviet spies at Los Alamos apparently shortened the time it took the Soviets to test their first A-bomb (1949) by at least a year.
C. What if an announcement were made, by highly trusted individuals around the world, such as the Queen and the Pope, saying that indeed SOME UFOs are ET spacecraft? Here are some things I believe would happen:
(1) Church attendance would increase.
(2) Mental hospital admissions would increase.
(3) The stock market would go down; uncertainty is always the enemy.
(4) Based on my more than 600 college lectures, the younger generation, which, unlike me, was never alive when there wasn’t a space program, would push for a new view of ourselves as EARTHLINGS instead of as Americans, Canadians, Greeks, Peruvians, etc. Many would think that would be great. But I know of no government on Earth that wants its citizens to owe their primary allegiance to the planet (where it belongs) instead of to individual national governments. Nationalism is the only game in town. I believe that alien visitors — they may be our landlords, for all we know — think of us as earthlings even though, because of our military traffic, they would be well aware of different ruling groups in different places.
D. A small group of religious fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson come to mind) have already loudly proclaimed that UFOs are the work of the devil and there is no other intelligent life outside Earth. What an insult to the notion of an all powerful GOD! They would be up the creek without a religious paddle if an announcement were to be made. They have had a great deal of political clout.
E. Making an announcement would require that governments admit they have been lying through their teeth for decades. I don’t know of any government that wants to do that.
F. If an announcement were carefully made without the scare mongering of “War of the Worlds”, a lot of people would think that surely, aliens, who can come here, must be far more advanced technologically than are we, since we can’t go out there. This would strongly suggest that soon there would be new methods of energy production, air and ground transport, computers and communication systems, i.e. economic chaos. We are not very good at large scale economic changes in a hurry. Think of the Soviet Union which, at our strong demands, had democracy, elections, freedom, capitalism. On the average, except for the high price of oil, are Russians better off today than they were 17 years ago??
G. Because I am convinced that military pilots in many countries have been disintegrated or “disappeared” by UFOs, I think governments would all be very resistant to telling their citizens that we tried to attack UFOs and they returned the favor — only they succeeded. The head of the American Rocket Society in 1952 took President Truman to task for the attack orders. Frank Feschino Jr. (“Shoot Them Down”) has gathered hundreds of reports of supposed airplane crashes in the USA and overseas in the early 1950s. Three military pilots, each of whom flew over 100 missions in Korea where they had to deal with marauding MIGs, crashed when they came back home. That seems very suspicious to me.
. . . .
5. WHY would saucers crash?
Usually this is accompanied by a comment that it makes no sense that a sophisticated vehicle coming from many light years away could possibly crash. Please note that the vehicle could have come from a base on the back side of the moon, in the asteroid belt, on Mars or some alien “coaling station” in the local neighborhood. I once did 25 college lectures in 35 days in 15 states. I was gone all the time from when I left home until I returned rather than going back and forth to home after each lecture.
A. In the first place, there are many indications that what crashed at Roswell and in the Plains of San Agustin in New Mexico in early July, 1947, were small Earth excursion modules rather than the interstellar, very large vehicles (space carriers? mother ships?) which would have brought them to Earth just as our large aircraft carriers carry 75 or so small airplanes whose mode of propulsion is distinctly different from that of the carrier.
B. Secondly, when we examine major efforts by the Transportation Safety Board to determine the cause of aircraft crashes, we often find, after much effort, that it was simple unexpected things ranging from loose bolts, to ingested birds, to faulty wiring, to pilot error, to ice in the wrong place. It could have been very high atmospheric electricity levels because of storms or the great dryness of the desert air. Or unexpected high altitude hail. We know a radar set was on over at White Sands because of an impending rocket launch and the fact that it used vacuum tubes. This was a tracking radar pointed North. Crossing the beam might have led to a small hiccup in the control system for a magnetoaerodynamic propulsion system leading to a collision and subsequent collision of the lead saucer and its wingman’s saucer. Perhaps a US military rocket launched in the neighborhood might have inadvertently homed in on a saucer. Perhaps there was a momentary loss of attention when the Trinity highly radioactive site, at which the first atomic bomb was tested, was noted. We certainly have no reason to believe that aliens never make mistakes, or never run into the unexpected. Some day perhaps the government will release the report that was undoubtedly written as to the causes of the crashes. Just because we don’t have that report, it doesn’t mean the event didn’t take place.
. . .
8. WHY hasn’t the government taken out Stan Friedman, if what he is saying about a Cosmic Watergate and overwhelming evidence that we have visitors is true?
Obviously I don’t speak for the government. I am careful in what I say, and I don’t break the law in seeking classified data from people with clearances. I may be doing exactly what they want, that is, preparing the public for the date when the great secret is released. I have never had an unlisted telephone number. It is in my books and on my website. All those lonely drives to Roswell would provide plenty of opportunity. My answering service is instructed to give out my travel information to callers. Frankly, I can’t live my life looking over my shoulder. Some have suggested I was too well known and that a sudden death would be suspicious…
9. WHY would people fake a bunch of MJ-12 documents?
I am not a psychiatrist, but I would suggest to enhance status; to think “Gotcha”; or to disinform the public so that the fake documents would be an excuse for labeling such genuine documents as the Eisenhower Briefing Document, the Truman-Forrestal Memo, and the Cutler-Twining Memo as frauds. Or, perhaps, might it be to be able to claim that the proponents are stupid or are disinformation specialists? The same old tired false anti-MJ-12 arguments keep being put forth despite the fact that I have demonstrated that they are nonsense. The Majestic 12 article in Wikipedia is loaded with false and misleading claims. For example, in the 5000-word afterword in “TOP SECRET/MAJIC” 2nd Edition (2005), in “Update on Operation Majestic 12” (see www.stantonfriedman.com), in “Roswell and the MJ-12 Documents in the New Millennium” (Ref.5), and in my “Review of Case MJ-12” also on my website I demolish the antis and show that other MJ-12 documents are fraudulent. Remember, one of the key rules for debunkers is “Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.” Another is “Do your research by proclamation, investigation is too much trouble and the public won’t know the difference.” I distinctly showed that at least seven of the supposed MJ-12 documents provided to Timothy Cooper are emulations of real documents published in books and generally available. They were retyped, much handwritten material was Xeroxed or scanned, and the two were combined. And there were often factual misstatements. Deuterium is not light hydrogen. Sandia is in New Mexico, while General Spaatz was not in New Mexico on July 7, 1947 (I found his flight log and a newspaper article and desk calendar indicating he was in Port Aransas, Texas, fishing).
Some of the statements from the phony emulations were repeated in other documents which means the latter ones were also phony. I have been told that when good information is leaked, bad is put out so as to confuse things and imply the real ones are phony: guilt by association. It is interesting that Colonel Richard Weaver, author of the grossly misleading USAF Book “The Roswell Report: Truth vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert” (see Ref. 5) had as his military specialty “Disinformation.” He provided the fiction.
. . .
There, fixed it like a good proofreader should.
“We’ve reported an abundance of links and info for FIRST HAND EXPERIENCERS with testimony beyond the quality routinely used to convict murderers to execution.”
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!! You have yet to post a credible picture of a saucer or an alien. First hand experiences are fine when subjected to cross examination by a trained prosecutor, but you believe these nitwits without question.
“The UFO stuff has allowed the ruling global Oligarchy
unprecedented power, technologies etc. with which to race the world forward into the global government faster than they’d otherwise have been able to manage.”
Wow, you really are over the edge, aren’t you?
“Spelling and grammar errors were often introduced purposely in the text. Each copy, manually prepared, contained a different mistake.”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It presumes that no one would know except a few people (including the lowly clerk who typed them) about this dumb trick. Can you imagine the pointless work it would demand to type everything multiple times just so you’d have traces? Better to simply have a bigot list that everyone signs who reads it. If info is leaked you simply investigage everyone. Your suggestion of deliberate mistakes is nothing more than one more insane excuse to explain a fraudulent document, and it is beyond silly.
The is an old axium in military intelligence: "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
It wasn't his statement, it was mine. I've served in the military, and was trained in the care and feeding of classified material. Were you?
That is right! We scared the Soviets by showing them pictures of our advanced aircraft well before they were ready for service. That way, they'd just surrender once they saw the real thing.
You are naive beyond words.
They were hiding the crash-recoveries and the obviously related reverse engineering projects, Einstein. The Soviets cannot attempt to get moles inside or otherwise steal information from projects unless they know about them. Our Nation can be thankful that folks like you are not in charge of secrecy and security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.