Talk:Project Mogul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Mogul article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Rewrite coming

It seems someone has decided to turn an NPOV article which mentions the controversy about the Roswell UFO incident into a rather silly POV piece which, without citations, baldly asserts some massive recovery of a UFO object in Roswell instead of what was actually reported by witnesses: debris consistent with a Mogul balloon.

Accordingly, I will do a rewrite, retaining the view that what was recovered was not what the Air Force claims, but with proper citations and verified assertions (for example, Col. Dubose NEVER said the material in the photos was switched).

Canada Jack 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was YOU who took a short NPOV article, decided to make it very pro-Mogul POV for the Roswell Incident by cherrypicking a few quotes and leaving everything contradictory out. All I did was put it back into context, e.g., pointing out that a few carefully picked quotes in isolation don't tell the full story.

That a massive recovery operation took place is not "bald assertions" but based on interviews with people involved. Various people to describe either a very large debris field and/or large recovery operation included Marcel, Rickett, Brazel Jr., Gen. Exon, Robert Smith, and others. Marcel in 1947 (not decades later) described debris scattered over a square mile. Even rancher Brazel described debris 200 yards across. How do you reconcile that with Cavitt claiming he found a 'tiny' balloon crash no bigger than his living room or 20 feet square? Have you read his testimony?

Cavitt even denied going out with Marcel or ever meeting Brazel. Have you read his testimony? How was he supposed to find his tiny balloon crash in the middle of nowhere without Brazel's help? Both Marcel and Brazel (who described him as "a man in plain clothes) said he accompanied them. So they contradict his claim of not going out with either one.

He is also contradicted by Rickett, his assistant. Rickett said he went out with Cavitt, but it was the next day AFTER Cavitt had already returned to the base with Marcel. Rickett said the large recovery operation was already under way and they had to pass through high security to get out to the debris field. Soldiers were everywhere picking up pieces. Rickett said he handled one of the pieces of thin metal which he couldn't bend no matter how much pressure he applied to it. [Incidentally, before going into counterintelligence, Rickett had been an aircraft mechanic and inspector. During WWII, he was sent to Europe as part of the team that studied German aircraft on site. So he knew a lot about metals.]

This was one of NUMEROUS descriptions of anomalous debris properties. Here's a 60+ page collection of Roswell debris descriptions, most of which describe highly anomalous material of great strength, not incredibly flimsy balloon and radar target material. It certainly is NOT just the say-so of Marcel. [1]

Cavitt was asked whether he saw any markings on the debris, such as flower patterns? He flatly denied it and added those descriptions of alien "hieroglyphics" were made up strictly by flying saucer writers out to make a buck. Yet tape with flower patterns, supposedly what was used in construction of the radar targets on Project Mogul, was supposed to be the one clear connection between the Brazel debris field material description and Mogul. Yet primary witness Cavitt not only denied it but ridiculed the whole notion. Have you read his testimony?

Cavitt also clearly lied for years about never being stationed at Roswell, which he switched to, Oh yes, I was stationed there but away at the time, to being there but not involved in any way. That was his constantly shifting story until the AF interviewed him, when now he claimed to be directly involved in the debris recovery, which he then minimized, and was contradicted by everybody as to what actually happened. In a court of law, this would not be considered a credible witness.

In contrast, Marcel's story of anomalous debris and a coverup has tons of corroboration from other witnesses, including people like Generals Exon and Dubose. Senior officers like Ramey, Blanchard, Dubose, Ryan (Ramey's operations officer, next Roswell base commander, and future AF Chief of Staff) praised Marcel afterwards in his service evaluations. Ramey referred to Marcel's service to his command as "outstanding" and said he thought he was command officer material. Dubose recommended Marcel for command officer training school. Ryan referred to Marcel's record as "most outstanding and most exemplary." Blanchard upped his numerical service rating. Blanchard and Dubose recommended his promotion to Lt. Col. in the A.F. Reserve. Does that sound like somebody who couldn't ID a simple balloon?

My citations are not only "proper" but what I wrote about Dubose saying there was a debris swap is not an "assertion" but based directly on Dubose's written and recorded testimony. Maybe Gen. Dubose didn't use the exact words "switched" or "swapped" to describe the coverup in Fort Worth, but anybody who bothers to read his actual words can see he directly implied that is what happened. Some sample Dubose quotes:

"The material shown in the photographs taken in Gen. Ramey's office was a weather balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a cover story to divert the attention of the press." (Affidavit)
"There was a host of people descending on our headquarters seeking information from Ramey, badgering him for information we didn't have. I didn't know what it was. Blanchard didn't know. Ramey didn't know... [Gen.] McMullen said, Look, why don't you come up with something, anything you can use to get the press off our back? So we came up with this weather balloon story. Somebody got one and we ran it up a couple of hundred feet and dropped it to make it look like it crashed, and that's what we used." (Reporter Billy Cox interview, Florida Today, 11/24/91, requoted in "Beyond Top Secret" by Timothy Good, p. 465)
"Actually, it was a cover story, the balloon part of it... Somebody cooked up the idea as a cover story ...we'll use this weather balloon. ...We were told this is the story that is to be given to the press, and that is it, and anything else, forget it." (Randle and Schmitt, UFO Crash at Roswell (paperback), p. 166, recorded interview, portions of recorded quote at [2])

It's quite clear that Dubose was saying they obtained a weather balloon from somewhere else and used it in the photos as a cover story to get the press off their backs.

No wonder Ramey and weather officer Newton described the balloon and radar target in Ramey's office as singular. No wonder that's what the photos also show. That's all it was. It didn't come from Roswell or Project Mogul. It was the cover story to get the press off their back.

Have you looked at the linked documentation showing all the weather balloon demonstrations staged by the military afterwards to debunk Roswell and the flying saucers (including one at Fort Worth 2 days later)? Have you looked at the linked documentation of weather balloon/radar target crashes? Weather balloons and radar targets were used all over the country by weather services, not just occasionally on Project Mogul. The military was also deliberately using them to debunk both Roswell and the flood of flying saucer reports. Read the documentation. These aren't "assertions" or "improper" citations. It's right out of the newspapers from 1947 and a recently discovered document showing that military intelligence was going with radar targets to explain the saucers.

It's a simple fact that there is currently nothing that clearly links balloon debris shown in the Fort Worth to Project Mogul. If anything, the photos clearly contradict the Mogul story and testimony from people like Brazel. Brazel, e.g., claimed he rolled the balloon material and sticks and foil/paper into two small bundles. Had this be Mogul, there would have been MULTIPLE balloons and MULTIPLE radar targets all rolled up together, not a SINGULAR balloon and SINGULAR radar target as described by Ramey and Newton in 1947 (and Newton still in the present). Newton (then and now) also said he thought it was an ordinary weather balloon/radar target that could have come from numerous weather stations.

Also, try obtaining high-resolution photos taken at Fort Worth and have a look at the white paper backing on the foil of the radar target. It's totally clean, not something that's been dragged through the dirt and left out in the elements for a month. This was a NEW radar target on display, not something recovered from Brazel's ranch. Dr Fil 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


The above is the sort of breathless nonsense which infected the Roswell UFO page, but which I and others have cleaned up.
You've managed to transform, Dr Fil, a page which was about a program called "Project Mogul" into a page which now should properly be called "A million reasons Why Project Mogul was not what was found at Roswell in 1947"
Accordingly, the section will be rewritten with the largely IRRELEVANT controversy omitted. It's IRRELEVANT because this is a section about the PROGRAM, not the ROSWELL INCIDENT.
I propose to simply omit most of the Roswell stuff, instead having a brief mention that Mogul came to prominence especially when the Air Force published its report identifying one of the flights as a source of the debris. Then, if any care to explore the issue further, there will be a "see (appropriate page)"
Canada Jack 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Rather than merely "propose", you do what all debunkers do when they can't slant an article their way and get mowed down with actual facts--TOTAL CENSORSHIP. You cut EVERYTHING to counter the claim that Mogul caused the Roswell incident and left the claim uncontested.
Nobody would be particularly interested in Mogul exept for the the Roswell incident. So some mention of Roswell is definitely appropriate, as is some summary of the argument pro and con. But you, of course, now totally CENSORED the con argument. How typical.
Allow me to remind you that it was YOU who originally lengthened the article by adding standard cherrypicked quotes of fellow debunkers to try to slant the article strongly to the pro-Mogul side vis-a-vis Roswell. Thus you had Marcel quoted in one interview saying he was photographed with real debris in Fort Worth, but you CENSORED the rest of the quote immediately following where he said they then substituted other debris for press photos. Or when I pointed out that Gen. Dubose corroborated Marcel's story of the debris swap, you claimed above that I made that up and Dubose never said any such thing. WRONG! What you call "breathless nonsense" included actual quotes from Dubose where he is saying exactly that and also saying it was all part of their cover story.
All you had Cavitt saying is that what he found was consistent with a balloon. But if you actually read ALL of what Cavitt said (have you?), it is grossly inconsistent with Mogul, what was written in 1947, and everybody's else's testimony, plus the fact that Cavitt denied for years being in any way involved or even at Roswell. Cavitt was obviously lying. Without that context, the reader is left with the false impression that all that was found was a balloon from a primary witness. Case closed.
Or how about your other article assertion that the claim of a large debris field and great secrecy was highly dubious? OK as far as it goes in presenting skeptical POV, except it based entirely on only one witness, namely Cavitt again, whereas the counterclaim (high secrecy, large cleanup) was based on multiple military witnesses (such as Rickett and Gen. Exon) and some 1947 quotes about high initial secrecy (including from Gen. Ramey) and a large debris field (e.g., Marcel's "square mile" debris field).
Your problem, is you can't counter these detailing of the facts, so you label them "breathless nonsense" and then CENSOR ALL MATERIAL that contradicts your personal belief system. This is what debunkers call "cleaning up". But it is nothing but blatant ugly CENSORSHIP.
I'm restoring the article back to where it was for now, even though I too think it has gotten out of hand. But that is what happens with all these UFO-related articles. Debunkers think they are the arbiters of holy truth, always present one-sided arguments and/or censor the other side, and any attempt to bring the articles back into balance ends up in a bitter, escalating arms race.Dr Fil


More nonsense, Dr Fil.

Again, as with the Roswell UFO story, we have simply created what should be in the first place - a NPOV article.

Mogul is chiefly known for its connection to Roswell, true. But that particular debate is extant on the "Air Force Reports on Roswell incident" page, which the "mogul" page directly links to, if anyone wants to see what the Air Force said and what detractors said (where much of your argument lies).

As it stood before I added "context" was a silly, one-sided argument dismissing the report out-of-hand, so I added some of what the Air Force actually claimed.

Afterwards, a separate "report" page was created, so that is where this debate should properly reside.

Your idea of "balance" is to spend more time debunking Cavitt than discussing the program itself?

As for your snipes about whether I've read his stuff, I've read the entire transcript of his testimony to the Air Force report, given 1994, 47 years after the fact. What I note when you and others who chose to dismiss is you focus in on the fact he doesn't recall details such as "flowers" and Brazel and a smaller debris field (even given the rather huge range of other descriptions from 200 yards to a mile), as if after 47 years he is expected to recall specific details of an incident he thought nothing of at the time.

What is NEVER mentioned is his account of what Rickett said, which in fact is a plausible explanation for Rickett's account. An account, it should be added bears NO ressemblance to what Marcel, Cavitt and the Brazel clan said occured, either in terms of WHAT was recovered and in terms of a large military recovery operation. Which is, no doubt, why, to believe it, you had to invent a second visit by these officers.

You are obviously using the Randle/Schmidt tactic of making claims which it is hoped no one will actually check out, but in this case I've read the transcript and found there a plausible explanation for what Rickett claimed happened.

Another aspect of what Rickett claimed and goes unmentioned by you is the fact that one of the authors involved here - Mr. Schmidt - was shown to be a fraud and a liar, and was publiclly disowned by his co-author Mr. Randle. And, Mr Randle has cast doubt on many of the claims - and interview tactics - carried out by Mr. Schmidt. IOW, the claim that Rickett described some "bat-wing" spacecraft recovery on his death bed is dubious only because Schmidt has now been shown to have faked his research.

But that would put some rather large holes in your stories, wouldn't it, Dr. Fil?

In any case, I believe the page on the Air Force report describes how they came to the conclusion that Mogul was involved and fairly lays out why many - like yourself - don't buy that line of thought.

AS for other critiques that differing accounts were ignored or "censored," ALL the debris field claims are there on the Roswell "witness" page - where they belong - as are doubts about Cavitt's terstimony, on the "report" page - where they belong!

So quit your belly-aching. On this page, a small reference to the fact that the AIr Force claimed this to be part of Roswell suffices. The DEBATE exists on the page describing the report.

After all, it is the REPORT that is disputed, not the PROGRAM.

Cheers.

Canada Jack 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] In other news

Blah blah blah. Anyway, what is Project Moby Dick, and if it stirred up such protest, why is there not a Wikipedia article about it? 64.90.198.6 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muller omitted

A paragraph was added which I have now removed referring to a lecture by a professor who identified "discs" used in Mogul as a source for the reports of flying discs/saucers. While this is an interesting theory, I omitted it as I had already moved the "Roswell" debate over to the Air Force report page and b) the professor's thoery seems to ignore the long-established sequence of events which the term "flying saucer" was coined - a misunderstanding of a witness account which described objects skipping across the sky like discs or saucers across water. Canada Jack —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.5.119.80 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Some information about the use of microphones was inserted into part of this page. It's fine for the description of the program, but it had little or nothing to do with the "flying saucer" reports. It seems there is a theory by one professor which seems to ignore some of the conclusions of the Air Force Report and some of the eyewitness testimony to the actual debris found. There were no "microphones" described (or mistakenly described).
And, to reiterate, the term "flying saucer" was not what the intial witness decribed as the shape of the objects in question - he said the objects floated along in a line and bobbed in a manner like saucers skipping across water. The press rephrased this initial description to coin the term "flying saucer" or "flying disc." But there were never any actual "disc" or "saucer" described associated with the debris the Air Force identified as being from Mogul, the presence of an actual "disc" in the program notwithstanding. The professor has a nice "explanation" for that term, unfortunately it ignores the history of how the term was coined and it also ignores the witness testimony of what was found on the ranch in 1947. Canada Jack 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more info?

Could this article have more information? What was the motivation behind this, if russians didnt test their first bomb yet? And it was stopped before the first test? What was the point then?--83.131.131.174 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)