Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:15:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brad Sparks <RB47x@AOL.COM>


Date:   6/12/2006 10:24:47 PM Pacific Standard Time

Comments interspersed

The correspondence discussed below is for Sign Incident #187, and located at:


and is very legible.

Is this really a pro-UFO statement or simply the obvious observation
that the calculated positions of Venus in paragraph 3 conflict with
the observed positions reported in paragraph 2? It is quite clear that
the measured positions reported in the letter are far from the known
positions of Venus during the afternoon of 7 Jan 1948. This was a
serendipitous discovery arising from an inquiry into another sighting,
probably of Venus, from Godman Field in August 1948.


You don't answer my question:  Since when in the AF files have you EVER seen
an anti-IFO or pro-UFO conclusions stated in writing as "conclusive"????

If you look at the historical context of the time, 1948, and the AF's efforts
to make this sensational case go away, then this kind of blunt anti-IFO
statement is indeed very unusual and significant -- and in light of Deyarmond's
next step of declaring the Mantell case "unexplained."  No one in all of 58 years
of UFO history ever knew that the AF had internally concluded the Mantell
case was "unexplained" and had covered it up with weasel-worded.  Today in 2006 we
 find out about it for the first time.

Curiously, the positions cited by Col Hix and Lt Orner do not agree.

They are at different times.

Hix reports215°, but the letter attributes a 240° azimuth measurement to
Orner at 1400 hrs. This measurement is not what Lt. Orner reported in his
statement at:


It's obviously a mistake in the analysis memo.

There, he reports that the 240° azimuth, 8° elevation measurement was
taken at 1735CST. He gives no time for the 250° azimuth at which his object
went below the horizon.

We are only reading a part of Lt Orner's reporting including his theodolite
tracking at Godman Field.  Cpl. James Hudson at Clinton County AFB heard the
azimuth-elevation readouts from Orner's tracking over the Plan 62 Interphone
System, linking several airfields in the region which was activated during the
Mantell incident.  Hudson at CC AFB heard and recorded the exact readouts and
times 6:54 - 7:02 PM (CST) of Orner's theodolite tracking at Godman Field from
around 250 degs (254.6 to 253. 9 to 253.0 degs).

I initially presumed that this was Venus (it was
almost an hour after sunset), but Venus does fit. Venus set
at 249° at 1907CST, but was nowhere near 240, 8 at 1735CST. It would have
been there around 1818 CST, however. Did Orner make a mistake in his
notes? 240° points a little south of Madisonville.

I reason that the 1400 time in the above letter seems almost certainly
since the aircraft were dispatched toward 215°.  But what of 1735CST? Was
something seen at that time and azimuth? I can only note the discrepancy in
these theodolite measurements.

Daniel Wilson made an interesting related find, which seems to cloud things
even more.


In this affidavit Cpl Hudson reports theodolite measurements from Godman
with azimuths around 254° (a little off from Venus, but not too bad) and
and times that correlate very well with Venus. Fine on the surface, but how
theodolites were tracking objects that evening? Does this infer that Orner's
measurements were taken in afternoon after all, and not at 1735CST or later.
Very confusing!

B:  No, Hudson recorded what he heard of Orner's readings over the interbase
interphone system (see above).  This does not match Venus too well, especially
the sequence of DECREASING azimuths (254.6 to 253. 9 to 253.0 degs), whereas
Venus' azimuth must INCREASE as it set. 

Here is what I found around the time my computer crashed last week:

Godman Field Control Tower
Latitude    N  37 54.4                
Longitude   W  85 58.0 
 Jan 7, 1948      
TIME                    OBJECT (UFO)                       VENUS
                        Azimuth       Elevation       Azimuth         
5:35 PM CST        240 degs  + 8 degs         232.9 degs  +15 degs 23.0 mins
6:54 PM CST        254.6       + 2.4              246.3           + 2  11.7
6:56 PM CST        253.9       + 2.0              246.7           + 1  51.6
7:02 PM CST        253.0       + 1.2              247.5           + 0  52
7:06 PM CST        disappeared                   248              + 0  12
7:07 PM CST                                              Venus set below
(Corrected for refraction, parallax, etc.)
The problem with this being Venus is that the azimuths are off by 7 to 8.3 to
7.2 to 5.5 degs and the elevation by 7 degs at first, but more troubling is
that the object WENT SOUTH from 6:54 to 7:02 PM, instead of Venus which WENT
NORTH.  A setting celestial body cannot do this.  However the nearly
simultaneous disappearance of Venus and the object is troubling too. 
Even if we postulated that the theodolite was miscalibrated by 7-8 degrees,
that would mean all the directions are shifted consistently by that same angle
(it's called a "systematic error").  The amount of that shift does not CHANGE
from minute to minute!!!  Once the theodolite is anchored that is it, a 7
degree error stays 7 degrees from then on.  How then can we get only a 5.5-degree
error if the hypothesized miscalibration was 7 (or was it 8?) degs???? 

Even so a miscalibration still doesn't explain the RELATIVE azimuth changes
heading SOUTH when they should have been heading NORTH.  Also the magnitude of
azimuth change is problematic.  The object moved South (to the left) by 1.6
degs in 6 minutes when at the same time Venus moved 1.2 degs (in those 6
minutes) to the North (to the right). 

Then Albert Deyarmond, Asst Deputy for Technical Analysis in the AMC Intell
Dept, comments on this analysis, based again on the (covered up) THEODOLITE
TRACKING and azimuth data, two days later with his own conclusion that the
Mantell case was "UNEXPLAINED":
"10 Nov 48
"It is apparent from the data given above, that the object sighted at Godman

Air Force Base on 7 January 1948 was not the planet Venus. Therefore, this
sighting must be considered as unexplained.
Asst Deputy for Tech Analysis
Tech Intelligence Div
Intelligence Department"
I don't know about you but I feel this document is something of a bombshell,

virtually the EQUIVALENT of the TS Estimate of the Situation, it is just
short of stating "extraterrestrial."  And as we ought to know, in the Navy
document I found that quotes the suppressed Project Sign Interim Status Report of 30
Nov 1948 (the actual Ghost of the Estimate, not the AIR 203 study whuch said
nothing about ETH), they were still asserting in that Interim Report the ETH
or "inter-planetary" as a possible explanation for flying discs. 
I also want to convey how amazed I am to find so many AF brass inside the
Control Tower at Godman Field during the Mantell incident.  I have never
heard this before.  This was not some case of a bunch of dumbcluck hillbilly
enlisted men and low-ranking green officers.  The base CO was there, Col. Hix, along
with Lt Col. E. G. Wood probably his deputy, Base Operations Officer Capt
Cary Carter, Capt James Duesler, and more, this is just off the top of my head. 
Also there was a Control Tower shift change at 3 PM in the middle of the
Mantell chase, so an entirely new set of Tower personnel were then exposed to the
whole incident, effectively doubling the number of personnel involved. 
This reminds me that back in 1975 I interviewed Gen. Garland and was
surprised to hear him say "I knew Tommy Mantell" and he said he thought
highly of him (if I can find my notes I can check the exact quotes I think I made) 
Clearly Mantell was not a hick barnyard pilot in some hillbilly Kentucky ANG but was
known to important AF brass as having a high reputation long before his death. 
And although Ruppelt lies and covers up a lot in this case, as he does in so
many others, he does let slip (as he sometimes does in other cases) one
intriguing comment of special human interest (p. 37):
"A long-time friend of Mantell's went on record as saying that he'd flown
with him several years and knew him personally. He couldn't conceive of
Mantell's even thinking about disregarding his lack of oxygen. Mantell was one of the
most cautious pilots he knew.
       "The only thing I can think," he commented, "was that he was
       after something that he believed to be more important than his
       life or his family."
Keep that ultimate sacrifice in mind before you dismiss this case as just a
stupid IFO and dumb pilot error in flying too high without oxygen.  There
are many troublesome aspects of this case that call for a fair hearing at last
be given to Mantell.  Maybe it will turn out that it was an IFO and was
hypoxia/pilot error.  But let's finally review ALL of the available FACTS
and DOCUMENTS FIRST before doing so shall we?
Yes Venus set as would be seen from Clinton County AFB, Wilmington, Ohio,
the time I get by US Naval Observatory online calculations at 7:56 PM EST (19:56
rather than 19:58) or 6:56 PM CST the time zone used for most of the Godman
Field reporting.  The Clinton County AFB Control Tower was about 3 miles
southeast of Wilmington so a more pinpoint calculation based on its exact
coordinates might account for the couple minutes' difference:
Clinton County AFB, Wilmington, Ohio
Control Tower 39 25 47 N, 83 47 32 W elev about 1055 ft
However, at about the same time as the 6-7 PM (CST) sightings from Clinton
County AFB, the same or similar sighting was made from Lockbourne AFB,
Columbus, Ohio, where a key witness in the Control Tower was an AMATEUR ASTRONOMER with 6
years' affiliation with the Hayden Planetarium/American Museum of Natural
True, witnesses can see Venus or stars on the horizon changing colors,
twinkling, seeming to move up-down, side-to-side, back-and-forth, without
actually going anywhere, due to autokinesis effects of involuntary eyeball movements
viewing largely featureless backgrounds like the sky where the eye cannot
hold its focus perfectly still.
But the amateur astronomer witness in the Lockbourne Control Tower states
that he saw the light in the WSW at about 15 degs elevation, a very specific
figure, at roughly 6:45 PM (CST), TWO HOURS AFTER SUNSET, and that it was
red, changing to amber-yellow for 1-2 secs at a time, and INTENSELY BRIGHT
"greater than that of any star" and comparable to a RUNWAY LANDING LIGHT AT "FULL
INTENSITY" at 500 feet away.  Assuming a runway light is 2 feet in diameter
(someone could check on that) the angular size would be over 1/3 Full Moon, much much
larger than a star or planet or pinpoint. 
It appeared to be appeared to be circular with "a thin wisp of tail extending
towards the horizon" and its length about 5 object diameters.  Obviously
very specific and hard to imagine anyone with astronomy background can
extrapolate 5 times a pinpoint, it had to have an extended angular diameter.  Presumably
this "tail" was about 2 Full Moons in length.
Then at the very specific time of 6:50 PM this object suddenly dropped to
the horizon in about 4 seconds, hovered there for 3 seconds, then climbed back
to its previous position (about 15 degs elevation) in 3 seconds, but not in a
straight line, but in an elliptical course counterclockwise.  That does not
sound like autokinesis of a star or planet Venus.  He estimated its speed in
this rapid maneuver as about 500 mph and that it appeared to be about 5 miles
away from Lockbourne.  Allowing for human error in estimating the 15 deg
elevation (witnesses usually overestimate) so that it was say 5-10 degs elevation, in
fact, that is roughly correct for a 5-mile distance moving 5-10 degs in 4
secs (400-800 mph). 
Then it lowered to the horizon and faded out of sight at 6:55 PM.  Yes this
was the setting time of Venus to within a minute or so, and it was in the
same direction (WSW).  Extraordinary coincidence. 
This just screams out "astronomical"!!!!  But before you decide to dismiss
this as Venus just consider a few more troubling observations by the amateur
astronomer in the Lockbourne Control Tower (and the sightings by the 6 Tower
and base personnel at Clinton Co. AFB at the same time).  And keep in mind this
is a PARTIAL analysis based on only a small part of the scattered files on this
case in the BB files (it is very time-consuming pulling this all togther, a
detailed Chronology minute by minute is desperately needed and it needs to
watch for numerous typos and other errors in the AF files and not just blindly
accept what they read in black and white):
He reported that there was "a high overcast and not one heavenly body was
visible."  How then could Venus have been visible?  He concluded "The object
apparently being under the overcast, and its erratic movement proves that it
was not an astronomical phenomenon." 
So then we have to postulate that the overcast was not overcast but a haze
that Venus could shine through.  But that does not explain the Clinton Co.
AFB observations which in fair agreement with the Lockbourne describe a
vertically elongated lighted object, specifically in a triangular or ice-cream cone
shape and colored red in parts.  The Clinton Co. AFB witnesses say the object was
so bright that when a cloud drifted in front of it the light shined right
through, even though the cloud blotted out the stars (from there the weather
was not overcast but scattered clouds).  They made several drawings of this
Skyhook-balloon shape, which Ruppelt redrew again to show how they were so
similar to a Skyhook which he drew right next to them.  Yet it was 2 HOURS AFTER SUNSET
and a Skyhook could not possibly be seen. 
The covered-up THEODOLITE TRACKING from Godman Field raises potentially
insuperable problems for a Skyhook theory and of course it totally excludes
Venus (which was 40-50 degs away), which could hardly be seen in daylight anyway. 
The THEODOLITE TRACKING was made by 1st Lt Paul I. Orner, Airways and Air
Communications Service, ATC (Air Transport Command), Detachment 733-5, Air
Force Base Unit (103rd MCS Sq), Godman Field, he was the Detachment Commander. 
Lt Orner was in the Control Tower during the Mantell chase and he records a
number of key facts, including the fact that Mantell's wingman Lt Clements
refueled and went back up to search for the UFO and for Mantell, but with
oxygen, went 100 miles out, (up to 33,000 ft) which would be over past Franklin
where Mantell had crashed (but no one had heard the report yet) and just over the
Kentucky/Tenn border.  Yet he saw absolutely nothing, he saw no object, as
he reported to the Tower at about 4:45 PM.  If it was a Skyhook balloon why
didn't Clements see it? 

Did he not report seeing it at 1515?  We need a ground track for the

Who is the "he"?  Clements?  Yeah he saw the bright light Mantell was
chasing, at around 3:15 PM.  I am waiting to read the full Accident Report before
making any further effort to reconstruct the Mantell part of the sightings that
day.  Too many of the statements in the BB files on Mantell seem incomplete,
and the Accident Report Summary seems to refer to much fuller accounts than are
found in BB files. 

Why didn't Mantell and his 3 wingmen see the Skyhook on their way in to the
Louisville/Godman area?  In fact the Mantell flight was SPECIFICALLY ASKED
by Godman Tower when they approached Godman if they had seen the object on
their way in!!!  This isn't just assumption based on a hope, but a specific query
put to them while they were still in flight! 
Godman base Commander Col. Hix was phoned about the object sighted by the
Tower at about 2:15 PM and he arrived at the Tower at about 2:20 PM to see
for himself.  Sure enough he saw the stationary white object at about azimuth
215 degs (bet. SW and SSW) about 1/4 Full Moon in angular size.  When viewed
through the 8x binoculars Col Hix could sometimes see RED COLOR bordering the top or
the bottom.  Skyhooks in midafternoon sunlight are WHITE NOT RED.  Only
sunset lighting gives them a fiery red coloration.  Col Hix and the Tower personnel
lost sight of the object at 3:50 PM when it went behind a cloud, and it had
remained "stationary for 1-1/2 hours" according to Hix's statement.  They
did not know yet that Capt Mantell had already crashed at about 3:18 PM.  About
this time (maybe 3:45) Lt Clements had refueled and went up in his F-51D to look
for Mantell and the UFO and he was told by the Tower that the object had
disappeared behind a cloud but gave him the last known heading, apparently
220 degs (I'm still trying to verify and correct the bad typos in AF's poorly retyped
copies of key witness statements like Clements' and many others).  Then they
told him the adjust heading by 5 degs to the left, apparently to the 215
azimuth at which the Tower had watched the UFO for 1-1/2 hours.  (Mantell had
reportedly followed a 210 heading but all these figures need to be carefully
Lt Orner also saw the small white object stationary obejct in the SW sky
from the Tower with Col Hix and the many other AF officers and personnel.  Orner
said that through binoculars it looked like a white parachute with bright
sunlight reflecting off the top.  Sounds like a SKYHOOK balloon!!!  EXCEPT
that he too saw "RED LIGHT" on the lower part of it. 
The red color fringes could possibly be attributed to poor optics. Two
would be that military binoculars are probably pretty quality, and "red" is
often in the descriptions.

I don't buy the "poor optics" explanation.  The red light is always described
as on TOP or on BOTTOM and never to the SIDES or in the MIDDLE of the object
-- and this was described at MULTIPLE BASES by MULTIPLE witnesses using
DIFFERENT OPTICS on that date.  They used these optics on other dates and didn't see
objects with red tinges on the top or bottom. 

This is Lt. Orner's report of his THEODOLITE TRACKING of the UFO from Godman

Field which began at about 5:35 PM (CST), or 1/2 HOUR AFTER SUNSET for a
high-altitude Skyhook balloon (almost an hour after sunset on the ground):
"At about 1735 CST I returned to the Control Tower and [saw] a bright light
different than a star at a position of about 240° azimuth and 8° elevation
from the Control Tower.  This was a round object.  It seemed to have a
dark spot in the center and the object moved north and disappeared from
the horizon at a point 250° from the Tower.  The unusual fact about this
object was the fact that it remained visible and glowed through the haze
near the Earth when no other stars were visible and did not disappear
until it went below the level of the Earth in a manner similar to the
sun or moon setting.  This object was viewed and tracked with the Weather
Station theodolite from the hangar roof."

If Venus were a crescent, the view through a small theodolite telescope might
show a dark middle due to low resolution, but Venus was 85% illuminated,
not a crescent. See above also.

Another problem with Venus is that it doesn't disappear in one day, it
reappears day after day, week after week.  Godman Field and other bases watched for
the UFO the next night Jan 8, 1948, and saw NOTHING.  I am still trying to
relocate where I read that. 

We now know that the 1-6-48 Skyhook launch from Milaca, Minn., (NOT Camp
Ripley 43 miles away, that was g.d. lie) reached its MAXIMUM HEIGHT of
80,000 ft in 3 hours of launch, or presumably at about 11 AM on the 6th.  It could
therefore not go any higher.  Thus the nonsense about 100,000 ft is sheer
 It had gone almost DUE SOUTH from Minnesota, slightly to the W, at about
190 degs.  It did not get tracked heading SE towards Kentucky so it is anyone's
guess where it actually went, unless there are lots of news reports charting
its course along the way.  There are no upper winds data in 1948 from 80,000
ft so no way to check using meteorological records. 
That means that when Lt Orner tracked the object by Godman's theodolite at
5:35 PM CST at 240° azimuth and 8° elevation, if it was a Skyhook balloon at
80,000 ft it had to be about 100 miles away to the WSW, which would be the
vicinity of HOPKINSVILLE, Kentucky.  YES THAT HOPKINSVILLE from the 1955
It would NOT be anywhere near Nashville, Tenn., where famed astronomer Carl
Seyfert sighted from 4:30 to 4:45 PM CST what he called a balloon with cable
to a suspended basket (the Skyhook pictures of 1-6-48 do not show a "basket" or
any other large object hanging beneath, only relatively tiny payloads). 

If Seyfert's description is wrong, perhaps he saw a different balloon, and
the balloon from Milaca was near Hopkinsville.

You can't have it both ways, you can't have the same object BOTH be Venus and
the Skyhook!!  The only reason I even brought up Lt Orner's theodolite
tracking with the subject of a Skyhook was to show the absurdity of it -- not to
seriously argue it really was the Skyhook and that now that somehow discredits
astronomer Seyfert!  Your argument has been that Orner tracked VENUS in the
theodolite!!  Here you seem to be saying Orner tracked the SKYHOOK and maybe then
Seyfert was wrong or it was "a different balloon."  But Skyhooks could NOT BE
SEEN IN THE DARK!!!  They were lit up by the sun!  An amateur astronomer in
the Nashville area actually timed th high-altitude disappearance of the Skyhook
at excatly 5:12 PM.  It was DARK and GONE after that! 

Clearly Seyfert DID see the Skyhook to the South from Nashville at about the
same time observers in Columbia saw it to their North, at about 4-4:30 PM

The fundamental stumbling block to any IFO explanation is Godman's tracking
of the same bright white object with a red tinge at 215 degs azimuth (about SW
/ SSW) from about 2:15 PM till disappearing behind a cloud at 3:50 PM, a half
hour after Mantell crashed chasing it.  At about 140 miles from the Skyhook
between Nashville and Columbia it is now agreed it could not possibly have been
seen.  Even if the Skyhook could be put say 20 miles south of Godman Field
that does not get it 92 miles away to Mantell's crash site near the Ky-Tenn
border near Franklin.  And if a ridiculous 300 mph Skyhook balloon was postulated
that could just keep ahead of Mantell during the 90-mile chase, it would still
not explain how Godman could still see the Skyhook from 90+ miles and continue
to see it for 1/2 hour more after that, when it presumably then moves south
over Nashville (where however no one sees it to the North, only to the South). 

The only way a balloon could possibly fit is if it was 300-1,500 FEET in
size, and over the Nashville-Columbia area.  In that case it would be large enough
to be seen from Godman and by the Mantell flight and could still be seen
after 15-20 mins of 300 mph chase by the F-51's which would not be able to quite
reach it if it was actually 140 miles away.  (Don't quote me on the exact speed
and time of the F-51's as I said I'm waiting for the Accident Report for more
satisfactory data.) 

After all the very first witness reports received by Godman at about 1:00 PM
stated it was a 250-300 foot object traveling at a "pretty fast clip" (but to
the W, wrong way for us). 

Madisonville reported a balloon too.
The report of that balloon tells everything, but the time, distance, azimuth,
elevation. Without a distance none of the other numbers reported can be
I question the 1320 time, because it is also the time of the initial
report, and the balloon seems to have been reported later to the State Police
at Franklin after Mantell's crash. The page in the Project Sign microfilm is
a Sign
summary, and there seems to be no original document to check the facts
Madisonville is about as far away from Nashville as Godman Field was,  so a
balloon near Nashville would not be visible from Madisonville, according to
latest figuring.

Even worse, when Lt Orner lost track of the UFO in the theodolite it was at
the horizon (0 degs elevation) still farther north at 250 degs azimuth.  An
80,000 ft balloon would have to be at about 350 MILES away at that point
over southern Missouri!!!  Even more discrepant with Seyfert's sighting in
Nashville, which would also be about 350 miles away.  AND IT IS IN PITCH DARKNESS!!!!! 

The Skyhook could not have been seen!!!
Finally there is a question about the SIZE of the Skyhook launched on
1-6-48, which affects whether Godman or Mantell could even have seen the balloon. 
Claims of 100 ft size are belied by the tracking report which states that
the dozen or so balloons launched there from late 1947 to early 1949 were 70 ft
and 72.8 ft balloons, not 100 ft.  Also unclear and being checked is whether
this 70-72.8 ft size applies to the entire package or just the gas bag that is
lit up by reflected sunlight.  Photos of the 1-6-48 launch show that about half
its length was the essentially invisible cabling to the relatively tiny
payloads and half the gas bag, which might mean the envelope was only about 35 ft in
Simple physics and human physiological optics shows that the Minimum Angle
of Resolution of about 1 arcminute (for normal 20/20 vision) would limit the
maximum distance a 35 ft Skyhook balloon gas bag could be seen is only about
23 MILES!!!  One could not see ANY details, it would be a mere PINPOINT at that
maximum possible distance for Skyhook visibility.  That would raise the
question of how on earth Mantell could see a Skyhook from 90 miles away in order to
chase it 90 miles to his death.

The relatively limited visibility zone, even for a 70 ft balloon, effectively

isolates the various reporting cities that day. That is, few of the reporting
cities could see any of the other reporting cities, because they are 45 miles
more away from each other. I speak of Madisonville, Owensville, Godman Field,
Nashville, Lexington, and Marysville. Balloons and anomalous aircraft can
around, of course, even at high speed, but Godman Field had its reportedly
stationary, "high in the sky" object in sight for an hour and a half. The
facts, reasonable on their own, just don't work well together in this case.

You mean "Maysville" and actually that may be an AF/Ruppelt error for
"Mannsville" which was southeast of Godman, though the AF docxs keep spelling it with
one "n" as "Mansville" (and "Maysville" would then be a typo where the one
"n" became a "y" in some versions). 

As a "normal" UFO case we would not be having so much trouble.  The
confounding aspect of this case is that it _seems_ a UFO (or more than one)
deliberately mimicked various IFO's but for fun (so to speak) kicked in a few completely
impossible appearances for the IFO it was imitating -- the mimicking of a
Skyhook is done as if it was far larger in size than any ever launched in 1948 (or
perhaps ever launched even up till today in 2006) and with maneuverability
and speed impossible for a wind-driven balloon.  This seems faintly like the
1896-7 Airship Wave that just screams "powered dirigible" except for none had
been invented yet and none would ever have the speed and maneuverability
allegedly seen in 1896-7 (and then too complicated by hoaxes and Venus sightings). 

The mimicking of Venus is done under the overcast when the actual Venus could
not be seen, and is interrupted with high-speed maneuverability which does
not comfortably match autokinesis eyeball movements, and a pseudo-setting motion
that does not quite match celestial bodies setting below the horizon (heads S
instead of N, angular motion not the right amount, etc.).

It's as if it's an intelligence test designed to see how close to an IFO
"they" can get before we get so confused we can't figure out what was really going
on.  It plays into the debunker mentality by provoking a prematurely
dismissive attitude so that the details that conflict with IFO will not be
investigated or will just be ignored -- as they pretty much have been for the past 58
years (with a little help from AF coverup, but that does not account for the last
30 years when the AF files have been public and none of this ever came out