Talk:Project Mogul

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)

I just wanted to add, that since the Mogul recovery at Roswell is a contentious issue, it needs to be stated as such, that it's in dispute, since there's essentially no photographic backup and army photographs of debris is still classified. The article currently states that a Mogul device was found at Roswell. 76.167.242.86 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here we go again...

Dr. Fil, once again, is trying to turn this page on the Mogul research program into a debate on the Roswell UFO incident. AS was said several years ago, this page is about MOGUL, not about the Roswell UFO incident. Further, the only "claim" made here is that the Air Force published a report which linked Mogul to the incident. Unless Dr Fil has some issue with that basic fact - that the Air Force published a report - there is nothing "POV" on the page. Is there some sort of controversy with the report? Anyone curious to explore further can visit the various links - to the page on the report, and to the page on the Roswell incident. Canada Jack (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This must be the hundredth time that Canada Jack has unilaterally deleted ALL of my edits just because he feels like it, leaving only his contributions. This is a clear violation of Wiki policy. Maybe he should at least defer to Wiki NPOV policy. The Roswell case is extremely controversial, and on controversial subjects Wiki policy literally demands that ALL relevant major POVs be presented, no ifs or buts. It's called fairness or balance.

This is also supposed to be an encyclopedia, i.e., it should be based on verifiable fact, not mere say-so of one group or another. The Air Force report was written by AFOSI, i.e., Air Force counterintelligence. They claimed Flight #4 accounted for the crash debris, but produced no records of such a flight. In other words, their claim was never verified. Why not? Because the actual verifiable facts from historical records literally prove that there was no such flight. There are no records of a Flight #4, just as there are no records for a Flight #3, or #9. Why? Because the only mention of such flights from a diary says that they were canceled. Friedman and Randle, not to mention other critics of the AF report, repeatedly argue this obviously highly relevant point. How can "Flight #4" explain the debris if it never existed?

It would seem that in any rational discussion of Project Mogul that this simple verifiable historical fact be mentioned, instead of just presenting the AFOSI claim as if there were no counterarguments. That is what NPOV is all about. Let the reader be aware of what is being debated.

Either that or just delete the Roswell section entirely, leaving the noncontroversial historical and verifiable aspects of Project Mogul in the first section.Dr Fil (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Fil, the article is called "Project Mogul." It is not called "Is Project Mogul connected to the Roswell UFO incident." If it was, you might have a point. But the only function of this page is to describe the project, not to wade into a side debate. There is no "POV" to state quite simply that the Air Force claims Mogul was the debris actually found. That is a undeniable fact. If one is curious about how that is so, one can click on the link, see what the Air Force said, and also see what critics say, and they may also click on the Roswell link. The only person on the planet who seems anxious to extend the scope of this article is you. Canada Jack (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is not "Is Project Mogul connected to the Roswell incident?" then why did you reinsert the section "Project Mogul IS connected to the Roswell incident?" Once you do that, you ARE creating a side debate because the subject is EXTREMELY controversial. And with controversial subjects, Wiki NPOV rules insist that that ALL relevant major POVs be included for article balance. (That's what NPOV is all about.) Just stating the USAF POV without at least noting major disagreement is itself POV, because it makes it appear there is no controversy, or that the USAF statement is uncontested fact.

But every single time I have tried to note controversy and a give one notable counterargument (true Wiki NPOV), you have COMPLETELY deleted it. The last time you did this within minutes of my posting it. This must be the hundredth time you have taken it upon yourself to completely censor my edits and leave your personal POV unopposed. Please show some respect and stop vandalizing my edits and also start respecting Wiki NPOV policy.

For the time being I am again going to delete the Roswell incident section (since you yourself admit this article is not "is Project Mogul connected to the Roswell incident?"), leaving a link to the Roswell incident for further reading at the bottom, with no comment. That is at least true NPOV. If you want to reinsert the section, then I insist that it be noted that there is considerable debate about it and why.Dr Fil (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Dr Fil, you are obsessed. The page has stood for 2 1/2 years. We are talking about a simple paragraph quite plainly saying that the Air Force suggests a Mogul flight sparked the Roswell incident. There is nothing "POV" about that. The fact that the word "suggests" is there "suggests" that there may be, perhaps, other viewpoints. And since, by definition, the Roswell UFO incident is about a UFO incident, then that alone would "suggest" that, uh, some folk believe that aliens and not Mogul balloons were involved. (!) For the purposes of this page, those here who are more interested in various aspects of military programs would find the Roswell stuff as more or less trivia. For those who might want to delve more into the Roswell topic, there is a link to the report, where numerous objections to the "suggestion" are found, and there is a link to the Roswell page. You are treating this as if this page is the final word on the Roswell UFO Incident. It quite plainly is not. Canada Jack (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your claim of me "vandalizing" the page, since you added a section without discussion, then deleted a section, again without discussion, even though we had this debate before, one wonders how you define "vandal." You have never shown any inclination to discuss your often substantial changes and scream bloody murder when I say "wait a minute." I notice you've not tried to make anyof these sorts of changes to the Roswell page for quite a while. Maybe because there are more editors there to stop you vandal-like approach to editing and your baseless claims that, if your edits are not included, then the page is "biased." Right. Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request Balanced Rewrite Of Article

We need the article to address what Project Mogul was first and foremost. A sub-topic would be the Roswell Incident, and it needs to be written fairly, addressing the government's official statement of what crashed at Roswell being a Mogul balloon, as well as the fact that this is the third "official" version of the truth put forth by the government. It should also be noted that a Mogul log book does NOT support the government's assertion of the launch on July 4, 1947 being the Mogal balloon that crashed, mainly because due to the fact that the log lists that flight as being canceled due to weather. The balloon was launched the next day, July 5, 1947, and according to the log book was recovered, hence not lost. And here's the big point, that's all the info we need in this article. Detail what Mogul was, the 3rd official explanation for the Rosewell incident, and about how the Mogul log book does not back up the government's claims. That's all that is needed on this topic. Period. BoyintheMachine (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The main function of Mogul was to explore methods of detecting Soviet nuclear tests, not to supply an explanation for the Roswell incident. Therefore, we need merely to mention that the Air Force suggested in a report - nearly 50 years later - that this project was what sparked the incident. Whether that claim is credible or not is beyond the scope of this page, or what this page should be. The link to that report - and the attendant disputes - is all we need on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You must have misread my words. I did not claim the funciton of Mogul was to explain the Roswell crash. Instead, I indicated that that "Mogul as Roswell crash explanation" would be a sub-category of the article. I am not seeking credibility of the claim, I am asking for balance. For example, there needs to be stated that Mogul was the third official explanation for Roswell given. To not include such would be to provide an imbalanced article. The inclusion of the facts of the Mogul log book not backing up the government's claims could be written in a "Controversy" sub-category. BoyintheMachine (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You must have misread my words. I did not claim the funciton of Mogul was to explain the Roswell crash. Then you agree with my fundamental point as that is what we would have to have here if your point is to be included. In other words, what "balance" is needed here? The only question which is relevant on this page is whether the Air Force did or did not in fact claim that Mogul was the source for Roswell. Period. If you have some source which denies that the Air Force in fact made that claim, you may have a point. But I have not heard any serious doubts risen as whether the Air Force in fact made those claims. The relevant page for your points disputing the Air Force claims is on the Air Force Report page itself, where counter-claims are to be found. Canada Jack (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll meet you half way. The function of Mogul could remain intact, but the Roswell subheader should be rewritten. Although it does present the bare minimals, it is still unbalanced in it's portrayal of information. Examples of information that should be included are that Mogul was the 3 official explanation offered for the Roswell crash, as well as criticism against the Mogul Balloon as Roswell Crash theory. There is no need to go into great deatail here, a couple of sentences would suffice, assuming they are properly written. Failure to include this information produces an unbalanced article, implies that the Project Mogul was the one and only explanation for Roswell, and implies that the issue has been resolved. Remember we are talking about a situation in which a possible explanation (Project Mogul) was only suggested but with time has mutated into PROVED to be what has crashed. Perhaps this observation should also be included, since the Air Force is not treating the Project Mogul theory behind Roswell as a suggestion, but rather as if it is a proven fact.BoyintheMachine (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you don't understand. The article is on the Mogul program. In passing, it is mentioned that the Air Force identified the program as the source of the debris for the Roswell UFO incident. Now you want this to be a debate on the Roswell UFO incident? You seem to feel there is a need to counter that information - but for the purposes of this page, as long as it is a fact that the Air Force made the claim, that's all we need here. Anyone who wants to explore the issue can find it discussed in full on the linked page.

Your fears that this somehow closes the book on Roswell, or suggests as much, are wildly overstated. There is nothing on this page which suggests the Roswell incident is "explained," just that the Air Force identified the debris as the source. If, for example, we had a phrase like "debris from one flight was later proven to be what sparked the Roswell incident" then you'd have a point. But there is nothing remotely close to that here, simply a statement that the Air Force concluded as much.

As for the critiques, if one wanted to open the debate, then we'd also have to add that significant members of the pro-UFO community - including the co-author of the first book on the subject - readily accept the Air Force explanation. Canada Jack (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a Mogul log book does NOT support the government's assertion of the launch on July 4, 1947 being the Mogal balloon that crashed, mainly because due to the fact that the log lists that flight as being canceled due to weather. The balloon was launched the next day, July 5, 1947, and according to the log book was recovered, hence not lost.

This is an example of the can of worms that would be opened by wading into this. Perhaps you've not read the source, or have been misled by researchers who have misinterpreted - perhaps deliberately - what the log book says. It says: Jun 4 Wed. Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. No balloon flights again on account of clouds. Flew regular sonobuoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400. Critics like to end the quote at "...of clouds," implying that no flight at all was made that day. Of course, as the rest of log indicates, a balloon train definitely went up. And, circumstantially, the fact that flight 5 (which was the flight which went up the next day) started to use radiosondes and not rawin reflectors indicates they had learned from the previous flight - which was lost - that theodolites were insufficient for tracking purposes.

And you want to mention this in the section? And you want to mention that this was the third explanation by the Air Force? But that is their explanation of the Roswell incident, not Mogul. And therefore beyond the scope of this page. Canada Jack (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long and unnecessary reply. What I am asking is to change the sub header info for Roswell to refelct a balance portrayal. For example, we could change it to this:

"In 1994/5, the Air Force OFFERED A THIRD OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FOR WHAT CRASHED AT ROSWELL, NM, by publishing a report suggesting that Mogul Flight #4, launched from Alamogordo, New Mexico on June 4, 1947, was the source of the debris which sparked the Roswell UFO incident. Though the Mogul hypothesis has never been proved, Project Mogul has been viewed by the Air Force and UFO skeptics as being the official accepted explanation for the events occuring in July of 1947 in Roswell, NM."

With regards to your other comments, try researching Brad Sparks, a skeptic who changed his mind after uncovering a document stating that the Air Tactical Command could not identify the wreckage, as well as suggesting the government has a "policy" on handling Roswell. Air Tactical Command was in charge of Mogul, and in 1947 there was no hint of F.O.I.A., so the documents were written with the belief that the public would never see them. It's hard to rationalize Air Tactical Command not knowing what the debris was, unless it wasn't from Mogul.

More importantly, ask yourself why the Mogul hypothesis wasn't proved? Surely the air force could have produced some documents from 1947 stating that what crashed was indeed a Mogul balloon. Yet no such document was ever produced. Why? Intead we get a 700+ page volume suggesting Project Mogul as the explanation. My personal opinion is that either the witnesses were correct, that it was the crash of a UFO, or it was some other top secret program the military still doesn't want us knowing about. But this is all beside the point. All I am interested in is a fair and balanced portrayal of the information. Currently it is not balanced. 71.146.234.110 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your idea of "fair and balanced" is, in a word, ludicrous. Why, prey tell, is it necessary for "balance" to include the phrase "third official explanation for what crashed at Roswell" unless one wants to imply that officials were not really sure what it was they found?

As for "Project Mogul has been viewed by the Air Force and UFO skeptics as being the official accepted explanation...", to be accurate, you'd also have to include the phrase "...and convinced numerous pro-ufo researchers including those who published books claiming aliens had crashed at Roswell that there were no aliens associated with the 1947 incident."

As for you comments about Air Tactical Command not knowing what the debris was, all I have to ask is: So what? Even members of the Mogul team didn't know exactly what the project they were working on was, and given the compartmentalization of the project, this is hardly surprising. Besides, the sort of Rawin devices used were novel in the US at the time. It is hardly surprising that some of the material used would be unfamiliar to most of the personnel involved. But the biggest reason why those FOI revelations are important are not for what they do or don't reveal about Mogul, but for the fact they reveal that the Air Force etc was very interested to know what, if anything, these UFO reports were. Most particularly if they were part of some sort of Soviet surveillance program. Since they had recovered the Roswell debris before these documents were written, that suggested to many pro-ufo researchers that there had been no recoveries of any materials which did not have a prosaic explanation, even if they didn't know specifically at the time, as with Mogul, what the projects involved were.

More importantly, ask yourself why the Mogul hypothesis wasn't proved? Surely the air force could have produced some documents from 1947 stating that what crashed was indeed a Mogul balloon.

Not sure why you have that expectation. If it was, as they claimed, debris from a crashed balloon program, then it probably was too mundane to worry about. Or the documentation was eventually destroyed. Whatever. There are probably 100 reasons one could come up with for not having any documentation here none of which require some sinister cover-up of an alien craft. Besides, the "documentation" does exist - in the form of the various contemporary descriptions which almost precisely describe the material used for Mogul, and which were corroborated by the descriptions made decades later which differ only in that some claimed super-strength for the material. The real mystery is why so many here cling to the belief that this was anything more than a pile of garbage.

The bottom line here is, once you open the can of worms, then you vastly expand the article into a debate on the Roswell UFO incident. But why do this when there is a page dedicated to that, and, more specifically, a page dedicated to the Air Force report herein referenced? Canada Jack (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is getting inappropriate, fast. Inserting Project Mogul as being "the third official explanation for Roswell", is fair and balanced and reflects history. You don't have a leg to stand on with your argument against it. I move to insert such changes as detailed above. FYI: Mogul involved standard meteorological equipment with only the purpose of such being Top Secret. Where did you get the idea that Rawin devices were novel at the time? BoyintheMachine (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is fine as it stands. Inserting "third" official explanation is complete b.s. as there was no official investigation on the incident until 1994. It is misleading and a canard from the pro-ufo community which conveniently ignores the fact that the program was not declassified until 1972 and the full scope of what, precisely, Mogul was could not be revealed until after that time. There is nothing "fair and balanced" as it implies that the military was lying about the debris all along, and continually changing its story. Which is precisely what the pro-ufo community claims. But the skeptics retort that there were no lies here at all. Just a over-heated initial press release saying "flying disc" which was quickly corrected once people who were aware what a rawin device was looked at it and, accurately but incompletely, described it as a weather balloon. Then, the precise nature of this weather balloon was described after the program was declassified. Mogul was a "weather balloon," but the purpose of Mogul was not to study weather. SO to say the this was the "third official explanation for Roswell" is complete and utter bullshit. Canada Jack (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rawin reflectors. The particular one in use was known by Irving Newton - who identified the debris as balloon material - as he saw them when stationed in Okinawa. However, there is no indication that anyone at the Roswell base was familiar with this type of reflector. Further, the reflectors Prof. Moore used for Mogul were modified versions of the ML-307 reflector, and those modifications were almost perfectly described by numerous witnesses who, clearly, had never seen a radar reflector of the sort in their life. So, to pretend that the Rawin device was "everyday" is nonsense. They were indeed "novel" to the eyes of most people concerned, in particular those at the Roswell base. Canada Jack (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1.) Jesse Marcel has already publicly stated in interviews that he was familiar with Rawin radar reflectors. 2.) Irving Newton claimed the debris he was shown WAS radar reflectors and weather balloon material. However, Newton did not see this material at the crash site, only viewing it at the press conferance when the Army released it's second explanation for the event, that of a crash of a weather balloon. Jesse Marcel has stated that the material that Newton saw WAS a weather ballon and that it WAS NOT the debris from the actual crash. 3.) The military/government has offered 4 explanations for Roswell. Those explanations are; A.) Flying Disk (UFO), B.) Weather Balloon, C.) Project Mogul, and D.) Crash Test Dummies. It doesn't matter how much money they spent or how far they went to back up their explanation. All that matters is that they have changed their story. Unless you can provide evidence to counter this then I will make the changes to this article to reflect such. BoyintheMachine (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Marcel positively identified the debris he posed with as debris he recovered. That debris included the remains of a rawin reflector. Once researchers pointed that out to him, he changed the story and said none of the debris he posed with was what he recovered. Clearly, while he may have been familiar with reflectors, he was not familiar with this version. He also claimed to have received five medals during the war for shooting down enemy planes, a claim found to be false.

2. True about Newton. However, the debris he posed with matches the description from Marcel and the others, save for exotic qualities claimed by some. Further, those descriptions, again save for the exotic qualities, almost precisely describe components which were on Mogul balloon launches. None of those descriptions from Marcel, Cavitt, the Brazels, the Proctors etc remotely ressemble any components expected from a craft capable of a) space travel and b) transporting beings bigger than a mouse.

3. You have been reading too many books by the likes of Randle Scmitt and Carey. The press release was no "explanation," it simply annouced that remains of something had been recovered. No one knew what a "flying disc" was. That was clarified the same day with the weather balloon explanation. In 1994, the true nature of the weather balloon was identified. Like it or not, Mogul was a secret program using weather balloons. IOW, the military/government issued a press release in 1947, clarified a description, and 62 years later, that description stands. As for crash test dummies, that explained the claims of aliens. No one claimed bodies were recovered at the Roswell crash site itself until the 1990s.

Perhaps you should explain for our benefit why there are, oh, something like a DOZEN claimed crash sites for this rather amazing craft? Why, if as now claimed there were bodies at the ranch, why whistle-blower Marcel uttered not a word about them? Why those who believe there were aliens at Roswell can't even agree on basic facts like where the aliens were recovered? Or how many aliens were recovered?

In the end, all this is fine and dandy, but it doesn't belong on a page whose function is to describe a once-classified military program. It belongs on the Roswell page, or the Air Force report page. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To re-iterate, expanding the section by including some of the statements you have suggested you'd add, BITM, would necessitate opening a can of worms. For one, if you were to have "this was the third/fourth explanation for the incident..." I would challenge that as I can cite sources which say there was a single explanation - a weather balloon - whose true classified purpose was later revealed. For another, if you limit the explanation as being embraced by the government and "debunkers" only, I will point out that in fact several prominent UFO believers, including the co-author of the first book on the incident, accept the Air Force's conclusion. And for every argument vis a vis Jesse Marcel "knowing" what a Rawin reflector looked like can be countered with the sort of argument I mentioned in 1) above.

Which is why I have argued for three years consistently and emphatically that the debate most properly resides on the Air Force Report page and the Roswell UFO Incident page as once you open this can of worms here, the page turns into a page which not so much describes the Mogul program, but which debates the Roswell UFO incident and the motives of the Air Force, things properly beyond the scope of this article. Canada Jack (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Project Mogul, not the Roswell Incident.

This is no place for a debate between ufologists and skeptics. Only the facts about Project Mogul should be included in the article. Passing judgment on a controversial topic which is not directly related, is beyond the scope of this article.Landroo (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoint

Shouldn't the Pages be rather neutral? The Mogul pages basically says "The UFO thing is made up!" While the Roswell UFO page rather sounds like "...and then they came up with "Mogul" to cover it up" That's kinda weird how the 2 wiki pages seem to be fighting each other... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.248.239 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

...and again!

Dr Fil inserted the following text a while ago, and there have been other recent attempts to insert text which suggest that a Mogul flight could not have been connected to the Roswell UFO incident

However, the alleged Flight #4 does not exist in Mogul's own records, said to have been cancelled because of cloudy weather, according to project scientist Albert Crary's diary. Similarly, the previously planned Flights #2 and #3 were also cancelled and thus absent from the records. Instead, the records show Flight #5 from the next day, June 5, 1947, as being the first actual Mogul flight in New Mexico.

This is the standard pro-UFO assertion that has been around for 20 years. By suggesting there was no flight on the particular day that the "Mogul" explanation would work (the wind conditions that day meant a lost balloon could have ended up where the Roswell debris was found, not true on other days) if it was to explain the Roswell UFO incident, the UFO crowd asserts the debris found could not have been part of the program, the near-identical descriptions of what flew for Mogul and what was described by witnesses to the UFO incident notwithstanding.

This pro-UFO explanation, however, is a bald-faced lie. They like to quote the mentioned diary which states: Jun 4 Wed. Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. No balloon flights again on account of clouds. They then state, "see? No flight! Therefore Mogul can't explain Roswell!" However, this is not the complete diary entry for that day. It continues: Flew regular sonobuoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400. As one can see, a flight DID go up that day and , since no record of the flight was made other than the mention here, it most probably was lost and therefore it can account for the debris as subsequent flights used material and tracking methods not consistent with the Roswell debris. Charles Moore stated on the issue of what happened to failed flights: "Only those flights in which an attempt was made to control the altitude of the balloon are included in the summary. Excluded are flights made to test special gear and launchings which were not successful." Since Flight 4 was launched, as per the diary, but no record was made, it was a lost balloon in all likelihood.

I do have a quibble with what the article states, and this comes sourced from a recent author who has this basic fact wrong: The Air Force did NOT know, specifically, what the recovered material was in 1947, so there was no "cover up" of Mogul then. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Dr Fil is always trying to weasel pro-UFO stuff into Wikipedia. Thanks for spelling out the facts for us, since we won't get them from him. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

English Major Analysis of "Third Official Explanation" debate

I have just written three articles about the Roswell hullaballoo, in which I conclude the basic fact was that all the big claims Cannot Be Proved By Evidence Available. In the process I read your article and debate. I'm an English major, editor and writer, and a stickler for concise, accurate word use. First Question: Can The 1990s Air Force report bringing Project Mogul to light be called an official explanation of the Roswell crash? First I think we have to say if was official, since it came from military sources. Second, it said a Mogul device was recovered from Brazel's site, and was the only thing recovered. It accounted for what crashed--explained it. So it was an official explanation for the brouhaha. Second question: was the public ever offered any other government accounts of what landed there? It would seem so: the Base first released a statement saying it had a flying disk in Army possession. Few details, but I see no way to characterize that but as a first explanation. Hours later it corrected that careless statement by saying it was in fact a weather balloon--Project Mogul flew on balloons. I don't care if they were weather balloons or not. There were some configurations of those balloons which might be seen as disk-like. Just between us skeptics, Canada Jack, there's no other way to put it: this is the second official explanation. I don't think you play into the UFO nutleys' hands at all by summing up the 1990s report revealing Project Mogul as the third official explanation. There's nothing wrong with successive explanations in response to public inquiry. The Air Force itself probably hadn't looked into what really happened at Roswell, since the 40s, when it did the 1990s work. Some reports talk about crash dummy testing as a way to explain the reports of bodies. If the crash dummy explanation came before 1995, then it would be the third explanation and Mogul the fourth. I don't think you're conceding anything to these characters by "3d official explanation," and I think it meets encyclopedia standards for objective phrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.245.3 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, Albert Crary was my father. As far as information from his diary is concerned, his handwriting was almost totally illegible to anyone other than himself. So inconsistent dates could easily be misreadings. And, yes, he did say on several occasions that the crash was a MOGUL balloon. Fcrary (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick question about flight 4

Hey all, I just wanted to ask people who are knowledgeable about this. Basically, everywhere I look I see that flight 4 took place however many pro-UFO people say that flight 4 never took place and everybody knew about MOGUL. Example:

"Problem: there was no Mogul launch during the period of the Roswell debris finding. We have the records of Albert Crary, who was assistant to the head scientist on the Mogul project. There was supposed to be a launch, launch 4, but it was cancelled.

Mogul also wasn't secret. Pictures of Mogul launches had been published in the press.

It seems odd that the army officers at Roswell who were familiar with the highest level of secret US technology would not recognise the Mogul scraps.

Mogul was the last in a line of sundry explanations for Roswell by the USAF. The stories changed several times over the decades and I'm not convinced I should believe them on this one.

Other than that, I have no further comments, as I feel Roswell has become a big red herring." from: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/2avipn/what_do_you_think_of_this_post_about_roswell_on/

Is there any veracity to this claim? I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, I just don't understand why people say it didn't take place if every reputable source says so, it makes no sense to me. Thank you.90.249.207.48 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Basically, everywhere I look I see that flight 4 took place however many pro-UFO people say that flight 4 never took place and everybody knew about MOGUL. On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources (WP:RS) say about any given subject. If your pro-UFO people have no reliable sources that can be cited to support whatever it is they are saying, then the issue is moot. In short, we aren’t obligated to disprove an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant alone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah fair enough, so it seems like it's just people with confirmation bias using cherry picking data as above it seems that a uses explained that people use part of a quote to say flight 4 didn't take place but the rest of the quote actually confirms it did take place. Funny how confirmation bias works.90.249.207.48 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)