The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Project Mogul is NOT the Cause of the Roswell Incident

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,020 times Debate No: 8707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)




A flying "something" crashed on a ranch outside of Roswell, New Mexico in early July of 1947.

Whatever it was that crashed, it was not Project Mogul (The Air Force's final, official explanation for the event).

This debate does not concern speculations of what may have crashed in Roswell, but whether or not what crashed was a Project Mogul balloon train.

I will concede the first round and allow my opponent to state his case for Project Mogul first. I will then provide a rebuttal in round 2 and summary in round 3.

I suspect that many readers (voters) have their own preconceived notions of what may have crashed in Roswell that fateful night, but I respectfully request that you fully read and carefully consider my position and provided evidence prior to any votes being cast.

Thank you, and I look forward to a spirited debate.


I thank my opponent for offering this debate and look forward to his information concerning one to the biggest UFO conspiracies in the world. I will be on the Con side of this resolution and will offer support suggesting Project Mogul is probably responsible for the crash in Roswell. My opponent took a strong position stating clearly, "Whatever it was that crashed, it was not Project Mogul." Now, I see no need for semantic arguments as obviously a project did not crash into the desert; an airborne vehicle designed by the project is the focus of this debate. Voters decide on the burden of proof, but I will attempt to operate under an equal burden. As to whether Con must do this will be left to the voters. I will negate the resolution and show Project Mogul is the best available answer for the mysterious Roswell incident.

1.I agree with pro's contention that an object crashed in the New Mexico desert in 1947.
2.I agree the landing does not appear planned, nor does it appear to be an example of a successful mission as the object was destroyed on impact, and data recovery spawned over half a century of debate on the existence of extraterrestrial life; we can safely call this one a "boo-boo", Air Force or aliens notwithstanding.

Negation of Pro's position:
Pro took the option of not presenting his case in the opening round; therefore, I cannot negate nonexistent arguments. I am not saying this practice is wrong, but I do not think Pro should have the luxury of mere refutation of my points without presenting his case. I can only show in this round the evidence supporting Project Mogul (PM hereafter) as the best explanation given considering the known evidence. Pro cannot, however, find relief in stating PM is a plausible explanation as his strong opening clearly states PM was not the cause of the crash.

Con Position:

PM has been defined by countless sources, but I consider the wiki to be a fair, brief description.
Here is a more detailed look at the project.
I consider this to be a good description of what PM was and I do not see that my opponent disagrees with the existence of this project or that the project produced unmanned balloons designed for sound detection.

Definition: (Derived from above stated sources) PM was a top secret US military project operating from 1947-1949, roughly, and consisted of developing long distance sound wave detection generated by Soviet bomb test by focusing on three areas of research:

1."[A]n expendable microphone, capable of detecting, at long range, low-frequency sound transmissions generated by explosions and missiles."
2."[A] means of telemetering (?) these sounds to a ground or airborne receiver."
3."[A] system from which to suspend the microphone and telemetering (?) device in the upper atmosphere for an extended period of time."

This project was in operation during the Roswell incident, was located in that area of the US (Alamogordo Army Airfield, now Holloman AFB, NM) and was approved prior to the incident occurring, by the US Army Air Forces (USAAF), the Air Materiel Command (AMC). I can find no evidence to suggest the PM was conceived as a result of the Roswell incident and a plethora of evidence suggesting the project was in operation prior to the 1947 crash. In addition, the approval process and the agency assigned with the task are consistent with other USAAF projects at the time. Here is a list of sources concerning defense acquisitions starting in 1945.
I see nothing out of line with the approval process or the history of other acquisitions during this timeframe.

Key Points:
1.A pre-approved top secret project tasked with developing unmanned balloons for sound wave detection was operating in the NM desert during July 1947. (above source)
2.I cannot find reliable evidence supporting findings of biological evidence present at the crash site, which further supports the unmanned object hypothesis. For the sake of all, please do not bring up the "alien autopsy".
3.The project's development is consistent with known acquisition protocol at the time. (above source, acquisition)
4.The US military did not possess a long range device designed to detect Soviet missile launches. as this project was developed later due to a lack of applicable unmanned vehicles.
5.The need for such devices is consistent with the US position in relation to the Soviet Union during the Cold War during this timeframe. (See above source, cold war.)
6.An object fell from the sky in July of 1947 in the NM desert. (Agreed upon by Pro and Con in this debate and the need for the inquiry by the US military supports the crash took place.)
7.The object possessed all the qualities of a PM balloon as explained by Charles B. Moore, one of three surviving Project Mogul scientists.
8.The project was top secret; a breech occurred when a farmer found debris and contacted the local sheriff. The sheriff contacted Roswell AAF. The military responded. (Above source, Muller.)
9.Due to the "need to know" basis of information in the military, the local citizens, the police force and nonessential military personnel were given a cover story claiming the object was a weather balloon instead compromising a top secret project.* (see below)
10.Due to the practice of compartmentalization, inconsistent information concerning PM was given by individuals unfamiliar with the scope of the project. (Muller)
11.As a veteran of the United States Air Force and a former member of a firm dealing in defense contract acquisitions, I find nothing inconsistent with any of the material available concerning this project, the time of its existence, the protocol used, the need for its existence, or the attempted cover up. (Voters can weigh anecdotal evidence.)
12.The PM is the best explanation available concerning the crash in New Mexico in July 1947.

* As a veteran of the USAF, I find the weight given the term "top secret" to be amusing. I do not speak for other vets on this site, but clearances are really not as important as the concept of "need to know". I know hundreds of people with top secret clearance, secret clearance, etc. I had secret clearance, and can, with some effort, get top secret clearance approval, if I still worked in an area where this is important. So what? If I do not have a need to know, then my clearance does nothing.
Debate Round No. 1


"8.The project was top secret; a breech occurred when a farmer found debris and contacted the local sheriff. The sheriff contacted Roswell AAF. The military responded."

Just how "Top Secret" was Project Mogul?

The only thing secret about Project Mogul was the purpose (described by Con). The balloon itself was of little importance. They had been left to drop in populated areas and were recovered by average civilians on several occasions. Sometimes they were left to rot. Mogul balloons had reward notices and questionnaires from New York University attached to them were they to be recovered by civilians ( -- among many other sources [pg. 45]).

Mogul had even been in the newspaper at the time, albeit with the cover story of being launched for the purpose of cosmic ray research ( [project title not publicized, but constituent elements identical]). More newspaper coverage from the time period covering similar balloon constructions with radar targets can be viewed here:

The great lengths to which the military went to silence the civilian witnesses as well as their own men is entirely inconsistent with the recovery of a Mogul balloon considering the materials were unclassified and completely mundane, it had been publicized in the newspaper (PM title not specified though, of course) and had attatched reward notices and questionairres.

It is important to note that all launches were announced in advance in Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) because of the fact that the long balloon trains could pose a threat to airborne navigation in the area. So, the officers at Roswell were undoubtedly aware of the Mogul flights. (

Charles Moore, one of the lead Project Mogul scientists, even admitted to traveling to Roswell to ask the base officers for assistance in tracking their balloons. Presumably the commanding officer of the RAAF, Colonel William "Butch" Blanchard, or one of his subordinate officers, refused the request. (

The neoprene balloons used for PM were of the same variety launched by the weather department at Roswell 4 times a day. ( They were easily recognizable and extremely common. The Rawin radar targets used for Mogul weren't quite as common, but certainly nothing extraordinary. They consisted of balsa wood struts (that could easily be snapped -- contrary to the claims of Moore and others), cloth-backed aluminum foil (that even Irving Newton [the weatherman who identified the materials in General Roger Ramey's office as a weather balloon] said could easily be torn), and string tying all the constituent elements together. These were all elements that would have been readily identifiable to any soldier. Many standard meterological packages of the time were identical, albeit much smaller (i.e. one balloon, one rawin radar target) so there was nothing out of the ordinary about them.

William "Mack" Brazel, the sheep rancher that originally came across the debris, should have been able to identify the conventional material immediately. Mack had recovered balloons previously that consisted of identical material, on at least two occasions. Brazel stated that what he found out on the ranch was nothing like what he found previously, but if it was Mogul, it would have been identical to what he had found previously. ( And, even if Brazel couldn't identify it, surely Marcel or Cavitt would have been able to identify it. And if not them, base commander William Blanchard surely could have identified the material. With the fact that all of the above witnesses were familiar with the material that a Mogul balloon consisted of, the notion that all of them were absolutely mystified by debris from a Rawin radar target is patently ludicrous. It's an insult to their intelligence, as well as ours.

Engineer Robert A. Galganski went about attempting to verify the claims of Charles Moore that they covered the balsa wood struts with glue to strengthen them which Moore said accounted for reports by Roswell witnesses of I-beam like debris that could not be cut, broken or burned. Galganski's experimental analysis of this claim can be read here:

Galganski found that even after coated with both tested adhesives, the balsa wood struts still looked like wood.

"All beams soaked in Elmer's Glue-All failed at a lower force level (average force equal to 4.3 newtons) than their untreated counterparts (7.4 newtons) a strength reduction of more than 40%."

National Casein 8580 Glue exhibited a higher average breaking force than both raw and Elmer's Glue treated wood, but "they could still be easily broken by hand."

Both the glue treated and control specimens failed the combustibility test. All three were combustible.

All three also failed cut resistance tests. All could be cut with a knife.

Galganski also did a mathematical analysis of the surface area of the Mogul balloon trains Flight 4 and Flight 9 comparative to the size of the reported debris field. Even allowing for an immense margin for error, Galganski found Mogul to be an absolute mathematical impossibility. (

Summary of Galganski's Mathematical Analysis:

"A rectangular field shape is implicit—but by no means certain—in Marcel's description. For that configuration, the debris would have littered an area equal to 250 ft (average width) x 4,000 ft (about � of a mile) long = 1,000,000 ft2 (nearly 23 acres). . . .

The unknown debris distribution is approximated by equations which attempt to simulate the major elements contained in the most reliable first-statement, firsthand, and secondhand witness testimony. My objective was to generate a conservative approximation of that pattern—one that would estimate the smallest possible amount of on-ground thin-shell material—to minimize the risk of unfairly biasing the evaluation outcome against the Mogul hypothesis.

. . . The model's parabolic field has the same overall dimensions described by Major Marcel: 250 feet wide (at its far end) by 4,000 feet long. But it encompasses only 667,000 ft2 (about 15 acres) of pasture, 33% less ground area than that contained in the rectangular configuration. . . .

Let Area 1 denote the model-estimated surface area of on-ground, thin-shell debris. This parameter . . . is equal to 6,880 ft2. . . .

To give the Mogul hypothesis a fighting chance, assume that all three targets landed on the pasture and were broken apart and shredded into pieces of varying size. The total laminate surface area (Area 2) is equal to 3 targets x 18 ft2 / target = 54 ft2. . . .

Compare the two surface areas by dividing Area 1 by Area 2. We obtain 6,880 ft2 / 54 ft2 = 127.4. This number tells us that it would take more than 127 Flight 4 balloon trains — more than 381 radar targets — to litter the field! Mercy. . . .

The model's debris coverage density is 6,880 ft2 / 667,000 ft2 = 0.0103 (1.03% overall coverage)—at the lower end of the arbitrary acceptable range. Nearly 99% of the simulated field is debris-free or uncovered, confirming the desired conservative nature of the model. . . .

The smallest length listed in Table 1—250 feet —assumes that Marcel completely butchered his estimate, imagining the debris to be scattered over an area 16 times longer than it actually was. Even for this mind-numbing scenario—a pasture with less area than a football field—it would still take 10 Mogul Flight 4 launches to supply the thin-shell material found on the ground. Alternatively, one Mogul train would account for only 10% of the debris."

More to come.


After reading Pro's R2, and reviewing the source material he provided, I still maintain the Con position stating PM is probably responsible for the Roswell incident.

I extrapolated these contentions from the material Pro provided. This summary is for my use; Pro is under no obligation to accept them. I fit all points, which I will address, into these points. I came up with two:
1.PM was a known project whose purpose was top secret but its balloons were not; therefore, the military response to the Roswell crash is inconsistent with the reported breech, recovery, and cover up that ensued following the July 1947 incident.
2.The items recovered at the crash site are not consistent with the products PM was designing; therefore, the debris could not have been a PM balloon.

Rebutting Pro's Position.
1."The only thing secret about Project Mogul was the purpose (described by Con). The balloon itself was of little importance." Pro supports this point by referencing material from a pro-UFO source. The source claims that weather balloons were abundant in this area; ranchers were aware of them and considered the balloons to be unimportant. The source further states that ranchers would not have descended on the area just to see another weather balloon. I agree. The crash we are referencing was not a weather balloon and it was different from the other balloons that fell in abundance. Was it a mogul balloon? This source claims mogul balloons had reward notices for return and the wreckage found had no such notices. Pro continues by providing a newspaper picture of balloons in Princeton, NJ and a source indicating balloon launches were reported regularly. I agree the crash does not appear to be debris from balloons in Princeton, NJ, weather balloons, or many of the balloons produced from the NY "balloon group". As explained in my previous source, the crash was not the product of any of these items. All those references were unnecessary as the item found was not your ordinary weather balloon, and we should not be surprised that people did not know what produced the debris.

The balloon in question is described by Muller, "The balloon that was found on the Foster Ranch consisted of as many as 23 350-gram balloons spaced at 20 foot intervals, several radar targets (3 to 5), plastic ballast tubes, parchment parachutes, a black "cutoff" box containing portions of a weather instrument, and a sonabuoy (Atch 3). After striking the ground, the radar reflectors, constructed of very light materials for minimum weight, would tear and break apart, spreading out over a large area when pulled across the ground by balloons that still possessed some buoyancy." Typical weather balloons consist of 1 350-gram balloon, a radiosonde housed in a cardboard box, and sometimes, a single corner reflector. (Pro showed you pictures of them) so yes, I see why uniformed civilians and military personnel would consider this debris field more than a run of the mill weather balloon. The fact launches were preceded by notices, public or to Airman, does little to support this was not a mogul balloon, as PM had no obligation to tell what type of balloon they were launching, and as clearly indicated by the debris and the nature of this particular balloon, it was not a typical PM balloon, but was a PM balloon, nonetheless.

The next area, prior to dealing with the actual crash materials, is the military response. Most of the items in the crash were unclassified, I agree. However, the combination of the weather balloon materials with the AN/CRT-1 was the big issue. As Mueller stated, "Although the Sonabuoy was not itself classified, its association with a balloon would have exposed a specific military purpose, an obvious violation of project classification guidelines." Disseminating all the parts and declaring them mundane does not account for the breech which occurs when all the materials are found together. In addition, the crash occurred near Roswell AAF, which had the only unit, worldwide, capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Reports of a "flying disc" were synonymous with a craft of unknown (possibly soviet) origin, not a space ship (Mueller). When such a report circulated, a heavy military response ensued to identify the object. I see nothing out of the ordinary here. My opponent did not source the military attempts to silence people, and some are over the top. He can present the most reliable in the next round should he choose to do so.

2.Next, my opponent cites Robert Galganski to show the crash could not have been caused by the above mentioned PM project. I read Galganski's materials and find he is basing much of his analysis on the accuracy of conflicting eye witness testimony. Dr. Galganski is an engineer and a UFO buff. His work has been questioned considerably and his analysis, provided by my opponent's source, is not indicative of professional work. . Galganski assumes too much in his work, making his analysis unreliable. I welcome voters to consider the veracity of this source and consider that most of his work in this area has been refuted. Due to Dr. Galganski's use of unreliable accounts to substantiate a questionable conclusion, I do not consider his materials of much value.

Despite the materials presented by Pro, PM is the best explanation for the Roswell incident.
Debate Round No. 2


"... the crash was not the product of any of these items. All those references were unnecessary as the item found was not your ordinary weather balloon, and we should not be surprised that people did not know what produced the debris."

The voters can compare for themselves:

Mogul Diagram:
Newspaper Reference:

Rawin radar targets would be the only constituent element to be described as metallic foil-like debris. The metallic foil-like debris with memory metal properties as well as cut, tear and burn resistance is what mystified all witnesses initially (among other things after a more thorough search).

I stated in Round 2 that radar targets were used in meteorological packages of the time, like those launched from the Roswell weather department 4 times a day.

Example images:


Rawin radar target used for Mogul:

"Dr. Galganski is an engineer and a _UFO buff_." [my emphasis]

Irrelevant ad hominem innuendo. Very murky label.

For example, an advocate of an extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) arrived upon after careful investigation and scientific analysis should not be lumped in the same basket as cultists and fanatics who rely on faith.

"His work has been questioned considerably and his analysis, provided by my opponent's source, is not indicative of professional work."

The Con's source discounts Marcel's estimate by cherry picking Brazel's (altered) estimate of the size of the debris field. Family, friends and neighbors reported that Brazel was detained and fed a new story. This was also supported by KGFL radio host Frank Joyce. (details and supporting testimony can be found in Witness to Roswell available online here:

Nickell's rhetorical question of the debris field of the Space Shuttle Columbia is irrelevant given that a Space Shuttle has a higher trajectory and is composed of way more material. Exponentially larger surface area. A Mogul balloon also has considerably less mass and would not break up in the atmosphere.

It should be noted that the Discovery Channel program cited by Nickell conducted an experiment by creating a PM replica and shot it down. It was one of the few good points in the program. I encourage everyone to view the end of the show and decide whether it could be mistaken for a "flying disc" by anyone let alone the base commander of the RAAF.

Nickell also left out Galganski's analysis of the glue coated balsa wood struts.

Nuclear Physicist Stanton T. Friedman provided a rebuttal of the Con's article that can be read here:

It should be noted that Mogul Flight #4 according to Dr. Albert P. Crary's log, was never even launched. All we have to rely on for the launch of Fight 4 is Moore's word. So just how reliable is Moore's word? Well, Moore had previously shown mathematically, using historical wind data, that Mogul Flight #4 would have "exactly landed" on the Foster ranch. However, as it turns out, Moore hoaxed his flight trajectory; that is, unless 100/12.1=350 ( &

Moore has never voiced a rebuttal, but then again, how could he? No matter what you say or do, you can't argue that 1+1=3. However, debunkers Dave Thomas and Tim Printy (of CSICOP) came to Moore's rescue attacking David Rudiak (the investigator that pointed out the mathematic errors of Moore's flight trajectory) calling him incompetent, among other things ( With that, you would assume Thomas and Printy had a way of countering the mathematical errors, but alas they did not. Instead, they argued that Moore was "qualitatively right," perhaps admitting his quantitative errors. Sorry, but facts are facts.

Voters should note that CSICOP is not a disinterested third party.

Moore claimed PM was so "Top Secret" that he didn't even know the name of the project. This was a lie. The following unclassified document was written in 1949 and specifically mentions Project Mogul by name: Moore knew of the letter as it came from his own files. According to the annotations on it, Moore reviewed that letter in 1969.

Dr. Crary also noted the name of PM in his diary, available to all project members, on December 11, 1946 that was cited in the Air Forces own Roswell Report released in 1995. (In Section 17, Journal Transcripts, Albert P. Crary, April 2 1946 - May 8, 1946 and December 2, 1946 - August 16, 1947)

Other debunkers point to the Ramey photographs ( as proof of the fact that the material that was recovered was indeed a conventional rawin radar target. However, witnesses such as Thomas Jefferson Dubose, Ramey's Chief of Staff, reported that the material was switched. There is some dispute over this, as according to Jaime Shandera, Dubose said the material wasn't switched. The problem is, Shandera did not record the interview, nor did he take notes. It is purely by his recollection. To the contrary, Dubose stated specifically in a 1991 affidavit that the material was in fact switched, and that the weather balloon story was a cover up. This is in writing, and on tape. Both Dubose's affidavit and recorded testimony can be found here:

Dubose also reiterated these statements in an interview with reporter Billy Cox , Florida Today, 11/24/91, requoted in Timothy Good, Beyond Top Secret, p. 465.

There are also conflicting reports about whether Marcel said the material in the photographs in Ramey's office were of the material that was recovered. Investigators William Moore and Jaime Shandera also stated that Marcel recalled that the debris photographed consisted of parts of the actual debris found at the Foster ranch. This is consistent with the story Moore and Shandera were pushing for at the time. The problem isn't Marcel or Dubose, but Moore and Shandera's reporting. Mrs. Dubose also confirmed the fact that Shandera didn't even bother to take notes. Moore provided three separate versions of the same interview with Marcel, that had not been recorded on audio or video, or even written down. When shown one of the photographs printed in the Air Force's Roswell Report, Marcel replied, "No. No. That picture was staged. That's not the stuff I brought home." This exchange was not reported by a Roswell believer, or skeptic, but a disinterested third party source, Johnny Mann. The exchange was also witnessed by Julian Krajewski. Linda Corley also interviewed Marcel in 1980 and got the same response on tape, that the material photographed was not the material that was found. Further discussion of these discrepancies can be found here:

One final bit of evidence pushed by the debunkers is the FBI Roswell document ( stating that "the object found resembles a high altitude weather balloon with a radar reflector ... disc and balloon being transported" Colonel Richard Weaver used this document as evidence to support the Air Force's conclusion in the Roswell Report that what was recovered was indeed a balloon. Of course, Weaver intentionally left out the rest of the sentence after "reflector" that read, "but that telephonic conversation between their office and Wright Field had not borne out this belief." It's easy to see why Weaver & Co. did not include the document as part of their report.


I thank my opponent for a debate on Roswell and will happily accept others if he offers. I do have problems with many ETH groups, but my opponent's conduct was stellar and I look forward to our future debates. I will address my opponent's rebuttals briefly and conclude my argument.

My opponent, again, shows photographs of weather balloons so as to conclude the PM balloons were too similar to known weather balloons to be of much notice. I already addressed this point referencing Mueller's work on the declassification documents. The diagram my opponent provides from sciop is grainy and I simply cannot read it. I cannot confirm that balloon is even a diagram of the same type of balloon found at the Roswell crash site. I maintain the object found was not a typical PM balloon and I have supported this contention.

My opponent takes issue with my assessment of his source, and claims I used an ad hominem attack when referencing Dr. Galganski's work. I did no such thing. I referenced Galganski as a UFO buff because the basis of his work was the conflicting eye witness testimony from various sources. He could easily have taken other eyewitness accounts and come to the opposite conclusion. He chose the accounts that best supported his preconceived notion concerning the ETH. His work is not scientific as no scientist worth his salt would attempt to make such a bold conclusion based on faulty premises. Galganski will not accept any evidence contradicting his position as with many pseudoscience adherents. He is highly vested in the ETH and his poor work and analysis supports this insurmountable bias. His work should be disregarded. The best he could have hoped for is the assessment is claiming the evidence was inconclusive. I agree the debris field evidence is spotty and accounts of the amount are contradicting. As such, I offered the Csiop report to show how he made too many assumptions in his work. I do not accept the demonstration provided for the TV special as the experiment could not fix the exact parameters of the original crash. All of this is inconclusive at best, and Dr. Galganski should have known better than to present such spotty work.
The majority of my opponent's sources are derived from pro ETH sites. I read all of them and did not dismiss them as quacks or anything of that nature. I examined them and made reasonable conclusions from the materials. Others would not be so kind.

My opponent offers more reports and accurately explains many are contradictory. I agree. His assessment of Moore's evaluations may indeed be correct. I reviewed Moore's work and could not come to a solid position concerning his statements; therefore, I only used his materials as verified by Mueller. Moore claimed he was not aware of the name Mogul, but the source verifying this came from a 1948 document cited by Mueller. If Mueller became aware later, then he may indeed have lied about it, but I did not rely on Moore's work unless it was confirmed in the declassification report. Any other reference to Moore is irrelevant to my position.

The last contention I will address is the rebuttal from Stanton Friedman. I own Friedman's book "Top Secret/Majic" 1996, 1997 First Marlow and Company edition. I have little respect for people who use academic credentials to peddle pseudoscience. Friedman is described as "NOT a UFO buff (emphasis in original). He IS the most outspoken, best known and most trusted scientific ufologist in North America (emphasis in original). Back cover, Top Secret/Majic. I ask voters to review the debunking Friedman offers as I see it as a rant. Much of his info comes from personal interviews he conducted and any contrary accounts are dismissed, claiming the individual was intimidated. I reviewed the document and considered it a rant and I did find his final statement to be humorous. "Suffice to say that the Skeptical Inquirer provides many examples of the intellectual bankruptcy of the pseudoscience of anti-ufology." Not only did he invent a nice label for himself, he even created a reverse label, "anti-ufology". I find his work has little merit and is more of a defense of his unverified accounts of interviews of nameless individuals than a rebuttal of the PM explanation.

I listed 12 points in my opening round and my opponent addressed one. I maintain all 12 points and see no need to repeat them, as those contentions withstood my opponent's rebuttals, and serve now as my conclusion.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
Agreed. I generally avoid alien debates, but this one was well worded so I took it. Not sure on the 7 pt votes though.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
All of the votes have been 7-point defaults. I see no justification for that.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
I'm not ignoring your comments, but I do not continue arguments in the comment section once the debate is over. Some do, but I don't. I look for RFDs and will address those. I will comment on any issues concerning conduct or technical issues. I did not want to imply the csiop source was inaccurate, I simply could not read it. I tried mousing over but could not do so. Probably an issue with my reader, not sure. I did not address it more as I simply could not read it. With only three votes, I am sure we will get some RFD's soon. I cannot see how anyone would award all 7 pts to either of us, as grammar/spelling was fine and so was conduct. I will take a debate on Majic 12 and Friedman if you want to do that in the future. Geo takes a lot of these debates but is not accepting comments right now.
Posted by PromptumVerum 7 years ago
Typo in my first clarification:

"--Yet elsewhere he states "it covered an area 200 yards in diameter." Which is less than half of the smallest estimate tested by Galganksi ("250 feet") which would still take 10 Mogul balloon trains to cover."

I meant to say that the smallest debris-field estimate tested by Galganski was less than half of ("250 feet") the estimate given by Brazel in the RDR of it covering an area "200 yards in diameter."
Posted by PromptumVerum 7 years ago
As for the constituent elements of PM being completely different than weather balloons. This is not the case.

The source you cited refers to PM Flight #4, which I already demonstrated was never launched "due to clouds" according to Dr. Albert P. Crary's own logs. The only source of Flight #4, cited by "Mueller" (I believe you mean McAndrew, from the Muller source you provided with the same claim) as the source of the debris, is Charles Moore who I have demonstrated has been egregiously dishonest in the past in apparent attempts to force fit the PM explanation on to the Roswell Incident (as referenced by his deliberate hoaxing of his trajectory calculations).

From wikipedia, cited by you: "The early Mogul balloons consisted of large clusters of rubber *meteorological* balloons." (my emphasis) Rather than rubber, it should say "neoprene" as later flights used polyethelyne which was larger and more durable, but still nothing but a balloon.

You should be able to zoom in on the PM diagram I provided. The option should be available via mouse over. Stated as a diagram of Flight #2.

BTW, your own source that attempted (poorly) to refute Galganski's analysis also contained of photograph of the PM reconstruction used in the show that validates my diagram and assertions of identical material. See here:

The radar reflectors I exhibited photographs of earlier (which is the only explanation for the "mystifying" foil-like debris) were also very common and were cited by debunkers of the time very frequently to explain away UFO sightings as light reflections from radar reflectors.

Lt. Robert Straub, officer of the day at the Clinton County Air Base scene of the Army Air Forces All-Weather Flying Center said the device was known as a "radiosone."

"It is used to take sounding by radar of the atmosphere," he said. " **Every weather station in the country uses them.** "
Posted by PromptumVerum 7 years ago
Thanks for the tip. I also enjoyed the debate.

Despite the fact that the debate has now come to a close, for the sake of clarification (at least to you) I would like to state that I still stand by Galganski's analysis for a few primary reasons:

--No evidence was provided to suggest that Galganski was a "biased" "UFO buff" other than his work suggesting an alternative cause to PM.

--What eye-witness testimony could have suggested an alternative conclusion? Sheridan Cavitt? The man that claimed he wasn't at the base at the time, then claimed it was small enough to put in the trunk of a car (to verify the weather balloon story) then changed his story a third time when the PM story was offered. Even his son and wife believed he knew more than he said and have testified to that affect.

The only other testimony would be Brazel from the Roswell Daily Record on the 9th, which was a totally different story than he told days before. Family members such as Bill Jr. testified to his being "jailed" and fed a new story prior to the interview. Neighbor Floyd Proctor stated he was in military custody for some time. This was corroberated in a separate interview with fellow neighbor L.D. Sparks who stated he was surrounded by about a half dozen military escorts. Further corroberation came from Leonard Porter and Bill Jenkins. (

But let's ignore all that and take a look at his statements from the paper cited by Nickell:

--Brazel stated "When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made up a bundle about three feet long and 7 to 8 inches thick."

This is consistent with a weather balloon, but NOT PM.

--Yet elsewhere he states "it covered an area 200 yards in diameter." Which is less than half of the smallest estimate tested by Galganksi ("250 feet") which would still take 10 Mogul balloon trains to cover.

His very statements from his SECOND version of the events are self-conflicting and refute PM.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
Debates are available concerning the first round and allowing your opponent to go first, etc. Review them and you can see the advantages and disadvantages for the practice. One problem I see is that missing the first round forces you to make contentions in the third instead of a conclusion.
Posted by PromptumVerum 7 years ago
I would like to thank sherlockmethod for accepting the debate.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to provide the summary I had intended for Round 3. I guess I over estimated the 8,000 character limit. There is a good deal of material I had intended to elaborate more fully on. In hindsight, perhaps I should have posted my summary in Round 1.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
No need to wait. I had some of the info already. I need to see pro's case first, I realized. Good luck Verum.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
I'll bite. I'm interested in Pro's evidence. If he has it, I will concede, and will welcome the new information. I will probably use most of the 72 hours as I can't find my project blue book. I will get one from the library, I guess. Anyway, good luck Pro and I am taking this because I want to see if you are presenting new info on this fun topic.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by PromptumVerum 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by whoa0whoa 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lt.Zubin 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07