UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

The sources for our speculation(s) about Roswell and Socorro

David Rudiak likes to say that UFO bloggers and web creators get their Roswell or Socorro materials from his web-site, but we've always gotten our materials from the original sources, such as NASA and the Goddard Library, putting our finds online years ago, from which others purloined our material. But that's okay with us, as disemmination of government information isn't owned by those who find it, online.

Here are some notes from the Goddard Library about Balloons re: Roswell and Socorro as we saw it and see it:
These notes took us to Raven Industries, A CIA front that worked with Howard Hughes on his Socorro-sighted lunar lander and the Helios and Moby Dick Projects that Mr. Rudiak wants to take out of the Roswell time-frame which are solidly in that time-frame, as you can see.

And here is a report about tethered gondolas (or lunar lander configurations) that might, as we see it, account for Lonnie Zamora's sighting:


And finally, an article from the skeptical inquirer that should bolster the Zoam Chomsky, Lance Moody, Gilles Fernandez and CDA views:

Project Moby Dick



  • Rich, so those cluster UFO sightings over the years of multiple bright objects twirling around each other in the sky, those are balloons from one of these projects? That's always intrigued.

    I found the comment in the "Moby Dick" link about the black helicopters flying around cattle mutilation sites interesting, too, with no further mention of the mutilations themselves. Let's keep our focus on the choppers, ha ha. Grist for another mill.

    As for Raven Industries and your Hughes lunar lander, I'm almost on board -- except for the lack of photos, diagrams, flight logs, etc. The same with Noam's lander photo of the Bell prototype. Looks convincing, except for any indication it ever flew.

    But I think you're both probably on the right track.

    By Blogger Ron, at Tuesday, September 23, 2014  

  • Ron:

    You should be able to find my previous postings with text and photos about the Hughes efforts.

    Try googling Hughes UFO Iconoclasts or Hughes RRRGroup.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 23, 2014  

  • Contrary to what you say, Gildenberg's article does not impress me. It is too over-embracing, i.e. it tries to encompass too much, a bit like that CIA historian's on-line piece a while back about the U-2 and SR-71 accounting for many, if not most, of the UFO sightings.

    Gildenberg does not deal with one single specific UFO case; he only talks in general terms, hoping that skeptical readers will embrace his views. I can certainly imagine his 'Moby Dick' and 'Grab Bag' balloons accounting for a few (very few) UFO reports but that is all.

    As for Roswell, unless and until he can produce a specific launch from a specific location, and at the relevant time, any attempt to link the Roswell 'saucer' with the projects he talks about is useless. The USAF has already covered this in its own reports, so Gildenberg's article in fact tells us nothing we didn't know already.

    The trouble with this sort of article is that the general public will likely accept it at face value, but the real UFO researchers, whether pro or anti, will dismiss it as superfluous 'waffle', which it is.

    So, no I do not give it high marks as a UFO explanatory paper.

    As Ron says above, the reference to cattle mutilations seems quite superfluous. As if helicopters had anything to do with these!

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 24, 2014  

  • How science or knowledge advances, CDA, rarely has to do with the overcoat of information that saturates us but, rather, the clues, the myopic details, wherein lies hidden truths.

    I've mentioned this a number of times: the Sherlock Holmes or Columbo templates for solving mysteries or crimes comes with the little things.

    Inside Gildenberg's screed lies a few things that UFO aficionados overlook as they do hit them in the face (or brain).

    The bludgening of supericial information is what UFO people, like David Rudiak or Kevin Randle, have been caught short by; that is, they don't see the forensic clues before them.

    You also seem to miss those clues.

    That's why I inserted the Goddard Library clips.

    Inside them reside pointers to things that UFO researchers and mavens overlook or miss.

    That's why the UFO phenomenon has not yet been explained, or at least some of the reported sightings.

    It's the little things, CDA...the little things.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 24, 2014  

  • The article has its value, but it is too superficial. It tries to cover too much with a thin blanket, instead of concentrating on a few big UFO cases and bringing them into the picture he is trying to convey.

    Oh yes, it is superior in quality to the writings of certain pro-ETHers. It just doesn't appeal to me. As I said, it resembles that CIA historian. Also similar in a way to someone who claimed, long ago, that ball lightning accounted for a large number of the unsolved cases (or even the 'solved' ones). Did it?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 24, 2014  

  • Yes, Christopher, the flaws are offputting and the overview too.

    But that shouldn't force us to eschew something that should be looked into: the balloon debris near Roswell, for instance, that wasn't a part of Mogul but is always argued in that context because some (Rudiak) think they can refute the context by "proving" (they say) that Flight 4 of Mogul never took place and Project manager Moore lied.

    There were other balloon flights in the area, in the time-frame, that Brazel recovered and tried to pawn off as saucer debris in order to get a needed reward.

    So, while Gildenberg's piece may be lousy, it contains items that forensics should pursue.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 24, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home