UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, August 10, 2007

Roswell and Socorro were balloons, that’s certain!


A search of military and NASA archives easily provides the material that “proves” the Roswell incident, Socorro sighting, and other (in)famous UFO sightings were and are the result of military (Navy and Air Force particularly) tests of various balloon types.


The Moby Dick and Intrepid tests of the middle and late forties explain Roswell and the Stratoscope LI program and the Stargazer program of the early and mid-1960s explain Socorro and other UFO incidents.



Richard Hall played down our assumptions when we first presented them a few years ago, and why?


Mr. Hall has devoted himself to UFOs for many, many years, and his ego won’t allow him to acknowledge his errant and incomplete research for all those years.

The cavalier and half-hearted, belief-oriented studies by Hall, Friedman, Rudiak, and others were and are obviously going to be defended by those men, but that’s a psychological problem, more than a problem of lazy methodology.

A perusal of the balloon archives shows conclusively that Roswell, Socorro and other “sightings” are prosaic, but UFO believers who’ve devoted their lives to mistaken analyses can’t and won’t accept the proof.


Bona fide (credible) UFO researchers who want the balloon archive list can request it via e-mail, and we’ll provide it.

Exegeses of the specific incidents can be found at our UFO web-site and this site:



  • Sorry, but even though it is certainly possible that the Roswell and Socorro events were balloons, it is far from certain. Certainty requires empirical evidence, not circumstantial. Your "certainty" is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

    If you want to be intellectually honest, your article should say "The Roswell Balloon hypothesis cannot be removed from the realm of possibility".

    By Blogger BrandonD, at Friday, August 10, 2007  

  • BrandonD:

    Normally you'd be right, but we have the documentation.

    The "certainty" derives from the papers that lay out the operations.

    Nonetheless, we like your perspicacity.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, August 10, 2007  

  • it is highly appropriate that you applied quotation marks to the word "proves".

    ten lines of text and a few pictures do not prove anything. it must have taken no more than 5 minutes to cook up this little beauty, i bet you can provide a Grand Unified Theory in 10-12 lines.

    not to mention the fact that your "explanation" contradicts even the official Air Force line that the Roswell incident involved dummies in high-altitude parachute drops.

    By Blogger hardflame, at Saturday, August 11, 2007  

  • I will e-mail you to request
    your documentation. I do however
    have this to point out:

    You mention Project Stargazer in the same breath as Soccoro, NM.
    The Stargazer balloon from all my
    reseach took place in December 1962. The Soccoro "incident" in
    April 1964. It all works out except
    for that whole two year gap.

    Care to forward an explanation?
    Love to hear it. =)

    By Blogger Researcher_01, at Monday, August 13, 2007  

  • Researcher_01:

    Socorro is a Hughes Aircraft event, as we "document" elsewhere.

    And the Stratoscope/Stargazer programs were part of the episode that was generated by a Hughes prototype, as we've explained extensively earlier here and at our UFO web-site.

    The balloon archive that we found a few years ago, which is very large, accounts for all the balloon tests by the military for the periods from 1944 into the 1980s.

    The date of a balloon test in New Mexico for April 1964 coincides with the Zamora sighting.

    (The balloon is secondary to the craft see on the ground by Zamora but intrinsic to the overall sighting.)

    Your "lapse" comes from the notion that Stargazer and Stratoscope ended in 1962. Neither program did.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 13, 2007  

  • Unless I'm mistaken, this is not the first time you or your group has claimed you had "documentation" to prove something, but then have never produced said documentation. (But perhaps I'm wrong--if so, forgive me for my lapse in memory). But if you DO have privileged information, then why not just publish it here? Let's see it. Why so cagey?

    I, in fact, am a skeptic regarding UFO's (as well as other paranormal phenomena, actually) and have long thought that the Socorro sighting sounded like it could have been a balloon (though there are certainly details in the story that are not consistent with the object being a balloon)... but I dislike this rhetorical crapshoot you seem to enjoy playing with truth, making statements of "certainty" where no "certainty" is warranted (I won't even go into your over-the-top statements in our earlier exchange re: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You folks (or are you one person?) seem to have some need to pretend that you have greater "inside" information than anyone else. Seems like a ploy for attention, to me. Well... I would be delighted to have the Socorro mystery finally solved, so if you DO have something, out with it. Cough it up and let's judge what you have. But if all you have is knowledge that at around the same time as Socorro (and Roswell) they (whoever they may be) were testing balloons... well gee gang, that's just great. I coulda told you that.

    Go and get more evidence, get a linking trail to these particular incidents, and then we'll have something to talk about. Or if you have something more concrete... LET'S SEE IT. Please.

    By Blogger Randall, at Monday, August 13, 2007  

  • Randall:

    We've published material (with documentation) at our UFO site and at various blogs of the RRRGroup.

    Researched matters are not put in a public venue as the materials have a tendency to be taken by others for their use (blogs and web-sites) without attribution.

    We don't wish to cast pearls before swine.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 13, 2007  

  • Please explain in detail your criteria for receiving access to your UFO web site. I still think
    Randall has a point. This is a public blog on which you state
    assertions. These assertions on the public blog are supposedly
    backed up by private documents.

    There is a conflict. The least you
    could do is provide the criteria for access here. Otherwise your blog is not helpful for people wanting to validate/confirm your theories. This has been a continued
    disputed issue on this forum and you seem in no hurry to resolve it.

    This does NOT help credibility IMHO. Can you see that?

    By Blogger curious_cat, at Tuesday, August 14, 2007  

  • Curious_cat:

    Here's a simple analogy that you (and others) should surely understand....

    You advertise an item for sale, and tout its specialities.

    When potential buyers show up at your house, you screen whom you'll invite inside to see the item, turning away the flea-bitten and rabble.

    That's how we view blog-readers: we'll share our information with bona fide researchers and ignore the UFO rabble, who continue to show up here (and other venues) hoping to get a peek at things they have no qualification to see.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 14, 2007  

  • the UFO rabble, who continue to show up here (and other venues) hoping to get a peek at things they have no qualification to see....

    Suffice it to say that the previous
    quote from this site smacks of
    elitism and arrogance. Beyond that
    it implies that I and any other "curious" parties do not have
    the mental capacity to interpret data from balloon tests, weather charts, mathematics, or for that matter read. Exactly which qualification did I miss? It is possibly one of the most fool hearty and laughable assertions I have EVER heard in my entire life. It goes beyond insults into the realm of disbelief. THE STATEMENT THAT I DO NOT HAVE THE FACALTIES TO COMPREHEND OR THE "QUALIFICATIONS" IS ABSURD. You sir, are a fool. Nothing more, nothing less.

    By Blogger Just_Defense, at Tuesday, August 14, 2007  

  • Curious_cat...

    We are guilty on all counts...

    (But still the rabble will have to ferret out the information on their own.)

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 14, 2007  

  • I'm interested in the criteria you use to determine those who are allowed access to your insider information.

    I can't say that I qualify as a "ufo researcher", but ufos and psychology are my 2 prime topics of interest and study. I have read all the required literature in ufology, stated here only to establish that my interest is more than a dilettante curiousity.

    It would interest me very much to read something that would establish with certainty, as you say, that the Roswell event was the crash of a balloon.

    But I haven't written a book myself, and I am no one of consequence in the ufo community. Am I thus merely "one of the rabble"?

    Futher, what exactly is your motivation for keeping this information secret from the general public? How could such information, if factual, be used in a detrimental way if exposed to mass public scrutiny?

    In general, actions such as these are done by people to gain attention. But I'm suspending judgement in the hopes that you'll explain yourselves more fully.

    By Blogger BrandonD, at Wednesday, August 15, 2007  

  • BrandonD:

    Why would we work diligently to gather information and material about UFOs, only to throw them on a forum open to all comers, slackers, and quidnuncs?

    We are elitists, that's obvious we think.

    We keep our friendships and associations to a few, those who are decent and honest persons.

    We share our information, as do other UFO mavens, with those who are serious about the phenomenon; that is, persons who've written about UFOs or who have web-sites and blogs that take the phenomenon seriously.

    Those passing by, who wish to grab material to satisfy an idle curiosity don't interest us.

    But those who read this blog, who are friends of ours, in media and the UFO community, are notified by us, in our postings, that we have or might have material that is of interest to them.

    Those who stumble upon this blog and see something that interests them can comment or e-mail us about their interest and we'll try to provide them with something of substance, if they seem to be open-minded and objective rather than confrontational or smart-assy.

    It's as simple as that....whether we get attention or not matters little to us.

    Whether we're liked by the rabble or not is of no concern to us.

    We prefer the company of intellectual types who rise above petty barbs and instant gratification while seeking the truth about UFOs.

    You can find blogs that try to enhance one's image first and solve the UFO mystery second.

    (Shall we name a few?)

    Go to them for your UFO fix.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, August 15, 2007  

  • The FACT remains that a blog is a
    public forum. If you don't want
    to throw pearls before swine then
    don't. It seems beyond foolish
    to yell somthing out in the streets
    (the blog--being the internet equivalent) and then when a stranger asks you what the all
    the comotion is about--you tell him
    you can't say,because he doesn't qualify to know. The only purpose such a tactic serves is to stir up trouble.

    In other words why publish the notification as if it is for all too hear in a public forum? Couldn't you just e-mail these trusted and true UFO researchers out there? Why the blog (open forum) for your discoveries (designated private) if not that your motivation is simply to aggitate and "poke a stick" in the eye of the UFO community.

    IMHO the question has not been fully answered. Why does this blog exist?

    By Blogger Quantum_Enigma, at Thursday, August 16, 2007  

  • Quantum_Enigma:

    Your premise is wrong, therefore everything that follows is wrong.

    Nonetheless, let us try to set you straight....

    We don't wish to send e-mails to everyone who may be credible in the UFO community.

    We've listed many with whom we communicate but there is a raft of others whom we don't know personally but who have established their UFO credentials and some of them show up here to read our ramblings.

    We have a long experience with the asses on the internet, those who look for postings that they can tag for comment in order to spew their opinions, instead of starting their own blogs or web-sites (or to bolster their egos if they do have blogs but are not getting hits).

    We know who is serious about UFOs and who isn't.

    Those who show up here with quirky names and even guirkier motivations can't draw us into their insanities and time-wasting colloquys.

    It's a simple as that.

    Persons whining about not having access to our supposed documents would do well to find the material for themselves, just as we did.

    It's not hard, just time consuming and a bit tedious.

    As for the purpose of this blog?

    Does their need to be one? Really?

    Let's not be totally asinine.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 16, 2007  

  • I have to, once again, input here. People continue to rabble on about Roswell and what might have been, as if noone else were actually there to witness. Why do all so assume that the simple ranchers were IGNORANT?? Ballons were well known among ranchers here since the 30's. Why don't you research that fact? It is well documented in local newspaper archives. You see, they eventually come down, and, believe it or not, the cattle have a tendency to chew on them. It clogs their stomaches and poses a health risk. This has been known for quite some time, even by my grandfather. Ranchers probably knew more about what a high altitude balloon looked like, than any of you. But I suppose it's just too easy to say (as the AF did) simple rancher never saw a ballon before. Musta scared him.
    You remember what A-S-S-U-M-E means, don't you? Or all you city types just do that natural?

    By Blogger nmrancher, at Thursday, August 16, 2007  

  • NMRancher:

    The "balloon" involved in the Roswell incident is only part of the scenario.

    We have posted the "incident" elsewhere here (and at our other blogs and web-sites).

    The balloon is integral to the episode but not the full story.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 16, 2007  

  • Dr. Rudy Schild A long time critic of the Roswell event who had always maintained it was a MOGUL balloon announced at the 38th MUFON after continuing research the Roswell incident could not have been a MOGUL balloon.

    He made two points:
    He decided to do research on the MOGUL launch, wind patter, weather etc. he said even if it was launch, which it couldn't have because of the weather, the wind patters is wrong and it would not have landed near the crash site, by the way the balloon launch after the "Roswell MOGUL launch" was considered the first successful balloon launch according to the records.
    If Roswell was a MOGUL balloon and did what it did - that launch would have been listed in the records as the first successful launch.

    Second: He decided to do some research. If it was balloon the documentation would probably died right after, but if it was something very significant there would have been activates in the other departments in the government. He said he is starting to read in released documents of this activity in the right places in government - more to come and .

    . He is continuing the research but for him the MOGUL explanation is over.

    I can not believe how Marcel, after attending a weather balloon required class some weeks earlier, mistook a several of balloons, sting, balsa wood radar targets tar a flying disk.

    Plus just what happened to the Microphone and hundreds of feet of line that was part of the balloons - none of the statements included any of this.

    I find one of the saddest problems with some in UFO field including Dr. Childs and researchers such as your self is the terrible way you treat the common witnesses. As if there words mean nothing. It is also very pragmatic for me when long time military careers are just not giving the respect they deserve. When witness agree with your pet theory - they are allowed to be erratic, change stories and makes asses out of them selves. All is forgiven because they agree. I don't have to go into detail on this because you know what I mean.
    After all didn't the rural folk prove that "stones were falling from the skies"
    By the way how many Roswell witnesses have you interviewed?
    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    non- commercial blog

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Monday, August 20, 2007  

  • Joseph,

    A couple of things...

    Interviewing witnesses is not an exact way to the truth, but you know that.

    As for Mogul, it explains part of the Roswell mystery, but only a part.

    Something extraordinary happened at Roswell, which unvolved a balloon and the Mogul experiment plus something else.

    That something else is yet to be clarified or explained.

    Something crashed, a Navy test ballloon was involved, and Mogul debris in the area confuses the episode, even though Mogul is not the primary Roswell "thing" that the military "captured."

    Someone may provide you with our web-site URL and password so you can see our full-blown hypothesis and documentation.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 20, 2007  

  • Dear RRR group,
    Well I am always open and wait for your evidence.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters.

    By Blogger Joseph Capp, at Monday, August 20, 2007  

  • I must say, you folks have certainly managed to stir up a hornet's nest. good show!

    The Odd Emperor

    By Blogger The Odd Emperor, at Thursday, August 30, 2007  

  • Odd:

    We don't mean to wreak havoc; it just happens.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, August 30, 2007  

  • That's the point of psychological-ops. Stir up a hornet's nest
    and see what flies out. Hope it's

    By Blogger Jacob, at Thursday, August 30, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home