Here is the Arrey, NM case of April 24, 1949. If there are any
comments/and/or criticisms, additional notes, please advise. I don't
think we left anything out, except once we had a copy of the letter
from the CIA files which are duplication of the ones presented that
were found in the Blue Book files.
take the sightings and submit the sighting up the chain.
test vehicles were in the area at the time.
case to Dr. Fitts for review. Instead of performing any type
for the object's altitude, speed and size could have been
up. (Sarcasm alert!))
directory is incomplete.
had misrepresented the sighting in that Moore did not work for him.
of Moore's object were classified. Well, there are no methods of
calculating these factors, and there is certainly no magic secret
were reported to the Air Force.
I don't think this sighting is particularly evidential.
C B Moore assumed escape velocity of
25,000 mph then calculated an altitude and distance, but there was no
way to determine any of those parameters. It was just pure
assumption. Moore wrote in his sighting report, "ASSUMING escape
velocity, a track [map] is enclosed which figures elevation above the
station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period."
Obviously there are no mountains in NM or anywhere else that are
300,000 feet tall and the story of the object passing in front of
mountains at one point is not in any of the actual witness statements
in the BB/Grudge/AFOSI/CIA files.
Now if it had been traveling at say 2500 mph then the altitude would be
about 30,000 feet, still taller than the tallest mountain on earth Mt.
Everest at 29,000 ft. If we cut that assumed speed in half to
1250 mph then we get a 15,000 ft altitude, almost within range of NM
mountain heights. Cut that assumption in half again you get 625
mph at 7,500 ft and now you're within jet speed. But the object's
size at that range becomes only about 2 feet! And there was no
Jan Aldrich <project1947@EARTHLINK.NET> said:
>Moore's "Tracks in the Gobi Desert."
>1. Moore had to force the AF and Navy intelligence
people on the base to
take the sightings and submit the sighting up the chain.
>2. No investigation was made to determine if aircraft,
balloons, or other
test vehicles were in the area at the time.
Brad Sparks: The above is flatly not true. This guy is
liar who lies
through his teeth, who falsifies maps to move Roswell around on
the map, lies about
not knowing he worked on Project "MOGUL" in 1947 till Bob Todd
first told him the codename in 1992 (in fact Moore had a 1949 Cdr.
White Sands letter to Van Allen in his own files naming him,
Moore, as head of
"Project Mogul" and proving this was widely known to White Sands
as Moore's, McLaughlin's and Van Allen's in the 40's), lies about
no radars at Holloman/White Sands in June 1947 so he could slam
Kauffman (you still haven't corrected this blatant historical
falsehood on the
Project 1947 website), he lied through his teeth to McDonald about
wanting to publicly take on the AF and after McDonald found out
admitted he "HAD NOT BEEN ENTIRELY HONEST" with McDonald (but
succeeded in engineering the Sino-Soviet split between the two
of UFOlogy, Hynek and McDonald), and lies about purportedly
MOGUL balloon trajectory that "exactly" pinpoints crashing on the
when in truth he fabricated and falsified numbers and butchered
the math to
force-fit the alleged balloon path.
You should not "help" him by changing his liar stories to resemble
better, or defending him, but should be looking into why Moore
lies his head
off so much, making Adamski seem like an honest Boy Scout in
(Adamski faked photos but I don't think he ever falsified a MAP,
Moore's original story was that NO ONE would take his April 24,
1949, UFO sighting
report, and that the AF was especially and bluntly uninterested
and refused to
take his report. Which left unanswered how the hell was
there a report of
his sighting in the AF files if the AF refused to accept his
report. Now you
change his story to say that Moore claimed he had to force the AF
and Navy to
take his report, but that they finally gave in and took down his
report, so that
it's less of a bald-faced knowing willful lie, but still a
The truth is that the AF (and the Navy) not only took Moore's UFO
report but had AFOSI INTERVIEW EVERYONE IN HIS CREW, and we have
statements. A copy of Moore's sighting report even reached
CIA Office of Scientific
Intelligence within 2 WEEKS and has a file copy Received stamp
with time and
date proving it.
Furthermore, again contrary to Moore's false depiction of the AF's
of interest, HQ USAF and AMC at Wright-Patterson were so
Moore's April 24, 1949, UFO sighting that it circulated Moore's
AMC for review and comment even though AMC could easily have just
ignored it or
trashed it because it was in the process of shutting down Project
the handover of AMC Intelligence Dept from pro-UFO Col. McCoy to
Watson in Aug 1949. In fact, this review process elicited a
recommendation and written endorsement from Moore's immediate
supervisor Dr Peoples
(remember Peoples and Moore were with AMC!!!! that's right, AMC's
Watson Labs) who
certainly would have told Moore that AMC had asked for his comment
expressed great interest, since there was absolutely nothing
The only reason I accept this April 24, 1949, sighting as
legitimate in the
face of the pervasive mendacity of its main witness is because the
back up the sighting, though their details do not fully agree with
(such as to what part of the sky the UFO first appeared in).
As for incompleteness of the NICAP website directory for this
case, if it
includes Greenwood's attempt at an escaping or tangential daytime
explanation (which I have also attempted) then it should also
Maccabee's refutation of that meteor explanation. I can't
objections to a bouncing meteor trajectory but it makes me
uncomfortable that the
data that are inconsistent with the meteor are solely Moore's data
and none of
the data from his crew are inconsistent with a meteor.
Otherwise I agree with Jan on the impossibility of determining
speed in this sighting.
By the way, what was an AF contract civilian, Moore, doing in
charge of a
Navy balloon tracking crew anyway? Why does someone like
Moore with a
long-standing relationship with the AF try use this circumstance
to suggest he was
pro-Navy and anti-AF? (He claims that later, in 1951-2, he
was very unhappy with
AF handling of General Mills UFO sightings and suggests the AF
General Mills as a result. Yeah right.) Perhaps to
throw us off the trail of his
I know you go off every time Moore is mentioned. However, C.
did not say that no one checked to see if there any other tests,
balloons, etc. were present during the Array, NM sighting.
said this, because the files mention no such checks.
Please review McLaughlin's article.
2. It was about 105 feet in diameter.
3. It was flying at an altitude of
approximately 56 miles. (This was
determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower
altitude on this
particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken.
reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating
4. Its speed was about 5 miles per second.
My conclusion is that McLaughlin is talking through his hat.
"ballistic expert" came up with these figures is either made an
to get there or they had some method (probably radar) to measure
parameters. There are indications that is possible, because
security concerns about such sightings reaching the press.
would think that McLaughlin would have freely mentioned it to Van
I would be very interested in your comments here!
The time that the sighting report reached the CIA has nothing to
the Moore's claim that both the Navy and AF locally did take his
Please note that OSI HQ was not happy with the reports from this
and told local OSI to follow proper procedures already in
Again, Jan Aldrich, not Moore, said that AMC did nothing about this
sighting and Fitts passed it off without even looking at after a
from AMC. Only one person there did some calculations
McLaughlin's "ballistic expert.") (The submission to experts
southern Oregon case and Moore's sighting was something that
doing at the time. There is a memo in the record which says
submissions should probably stop as it was a waste of time.)
Moore did no say there were no radars on White Sands. He
he capabilities of the one radar that could even conceivable be
used by one
man to track anything. Other radars at White Sands were crew
need a large contingent to operate, not one man who couldn't be
for anything. Kaufmann's further BS.
Moore wasn't the one who was unhappy about AF although Moore said
publicly in newspaper interviews that UFOs should be seriously
investigated. However, other General Mills people who we
completely unimpressed by Ruppelt and refused to cooperate with
the AF when
Ruppelt put them off by saying they should report to ADC.
I do not agree that Moore engineered the Hynek McDonald
split. McD went
to speak with Hynek in a very aggressive and accusatory mood and
Both Vallee and Hynek speak of him banging on the desk. So,
I don't think
we can blame Moore for anything here....McD said in his head he
should make peace with Hynek, but his heart wouldn't let him.
As far as Moore being pro-AF or anything. He constantly made
about a better scientific UFO investigation. He left General
because of a disagreement with the AF about the materials and
in balloon products.
In a message dated 5/1/2005 9:30:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Subj: Re: Incident with C.B. Moore
> Date: 5/1/2005 9:30:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, RB47x@AOL.COM
> Sent from the Internet
> I know you go off every time Moore is
mentioned. However, C. B. Moore
> did not say that no one checked to see if there any other
> balloons, etc. were present during the Array, NM
sighting. Jan Aldrich
> said this, because the files mention no such checks.
I didn't say that Moore had said that in the first
place. I said what
you and Tom Tulien originally told me, which was that Moore had
claimed that the
AF and Navy had both been totally uninterested in his UFO report
-- and NOT
restricting his remarks to LOCAL AF and Navy operations being
and that he found this AF attitude continued on for YEARS, and
that he had had
to consider reporting his sighting to DONALD KEYHOE because of
lack of interest by the AF (in fact his drafting of a letter to
nothing to do with lack of AF interest). When I objected
that this was obviously
not true because his UFO sighting report was in all sorts of
official AF and
Navy and even CIA files within days or weeks of the event (i.e.,
by early May
1949) you then stepped in to "help" Moore with his false story by
Moore had had to force his report onto the local military offices
Sands. So did Moore actually say that, qualifying his false
story of uninterest?
If you have the tapes of the Moore interview why don't you just
issue as to what exactly Moore said by QUOTING him verbatim?
As I pointed out earlier, the "local" AFOSI investigated Moore's
within days, taking statements from him and his balloon tracking
crew members May
2-4, 1949. Within a few days of that, his April 27 written
circulated so far and wide it made it into the CIA Office of
files (I can't find my copy but I recall the Received stamp date
was like May 6 or 10, 1949). By May 18, AMC personnel had
sighting with his boss or former boss Dr James Peoples of AMC
Labs/Cambridge Geophysical Research Directorate who had received a
copy of the report
Moore's sighting generated so much AF interest that even that
bastard Col Harold Watson produced a 2-page analysis of Moore's
case and gave him
the unique distinction of apparently earning the only Unidentified
conclusion by Watson on record (undated Watson AMC memo to Maj.
Defensive Air Branch prob. circa Aug 1949).
> Please review McLaughlin's article.
> 2. It was about 105 feet in diameter.
> 3. It was flying at an altitude of
approximately 56 miles. (This was
> determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower
altitude on this
> particular bright day could not have fitted the data
taken. For security
> reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating
> 4. Its speed was about 5 miles per second.
> My conclusion is that McLaughlin is talking through his
> "ballistic expert" came up with these figures is either made
> to get there or they had some method (probably radar) to
> parameters. There are indications that is possible,
because of the
> security concerns about such sightings reaching the
press. However, one
> would think that McLaughlin would have freely mentioned it to
> I would be very interested in your comments here!
Instead of picking on some non-scientist's jumble of
figures, why not
examine scientist-engineer Moore's incredibly incompetent
instead?? Apparently Moore was just as bad with arithmetic
division) in 1949 as he was in the 90's and 2001 (when it was
mixed with gross error, conveniently uncorrected). Moore's
angular velocity or (actually) azimuth change of the UFO of 5
second does not agree with the simple change-in-azimuth or
direction figures Moore
gave and his time figures (190 degs/50 secs or 185/50 DO THE MATH
which yield 3.7 to 3.8 degrees per second, nor do they agree with
the data from
his crew members which did in fact fit the data. Navy Chief
William Akers reported the angular velocity as about 1.5 degrees
and his and the other crew members' data yield figures in the 1-3
These errors by Moore greatly reduce the speed estimates by 25% to
> The time that the sighting report reached the CIA has nothing
to do with
> the Moore's claim that both the Navy and AF locally did take
> Please note that OSI HQ was not happy with the reports from
this time frame
> and told local OSI to follow proper procedures already in
They do too have to do with Moore's claim! The CIA
got its copy of
Moore's report FROM THE NAVY -- the supposedly so uninterested
Those May 1949 AFOSI memos instructing OSI in NM to comply with
directives have NOTHING TO DO WITH UNINTEREST OR SLOPPINESS as you
try to imply!
They were a direct slap at local AFOSI offices which had been
COVERING UP Dr.
Joseph Kaplan's secret compartmented investigation which Kaplan
them, on his April 27, 1949, visit, to be specifically kept secret
AFOSI ordered the compartmentation to be broken and that all the
sent to AMC so AMC would see that AF Intelligence and AF
Board were trying to cut AMC and its odious Project Grudge OUT OF
THE LOOP on the
NM flying discs investigation (which eventually led to Project
all taken over by AMC).
> Again, Jan Aldrich, not Moore, said that AMC did
nothing about this
> sighting and Fitts passed it off without even looking at
after a request
> from AMC. Only one person there did some calculations
> McLaughlin's "ballistic expert.") (The submission to
experts of the
> southern Oregon case and Moore's sighting was something that
> doing at the time. There is a memo in the record which
says that such
> submissions should probably stop as it was a waste of time.)
See above so I don't have to repeat myself. Not
only did the infamous
Col Watson admit that the NM sighting was unexplained, but many
AMC worked on Moore's sighting. Col. George F. Smith, Chief
of the AMC
Aircraft Projects Section of the Engineering Division wrote on
July 27, 1949, that:
"This Office can give no hint
of identification or possible origin of
these objects as described."
Memos on other subjects and cases mention the Arrey, NM, or Moore
the BB, Sign, Grudge, AFOSI, FBI, Army and CIA files, and these
need to be
pulled together in one place to get a more complete picture.
> Moore did not say there were no radars on White Sands.
He talked about
> the capabilities of the one radar that could even conceivable
be used by one
> man to track anything. Other radars at White Sands were
crew served and
> need a large contingent to operate, not one man who couldn't
> for anything. Kaufmann's further BS.
B: Moore never said anything about a "one man" tracking
issue -- that is Jan
Aldrich saying that. Moore in his 1995 commentary is filled
knowing willful lies and deviously fabricated and fictitious
assertions, and is
posted unanswered and unrefuted on Project 1947's Roswell pages
of my complaints about its outrageous falsehoods and lies.
Moore claims that
Frank Kaufmann ("Steve MacKenzie") could not have used what he
was the ONE and only aircraft tracking radar at White Sands, an
ordinarily used to track his MOGUL balloons and the V-2 rocket
launches (this in
itself was a bold-faced lie because Moore's own MOGUL group had at
other radars at White Sands, a CPS-4, a CPS-5, and two SCR-270's,
for a total
of at least FIVE known radars at White Sands NOT JUST ONE).
Kaufmann could not have used that "one" radar because, Moore
asserted, that Kaufmann/"MacKenzie" had claimed he tracked the
supposed Roswell UFO at
ranges of around 130 to 160 miles and the SCR-584 radar supposedly
range of less than 40 miles. Except he failed to mention
that the RADAR HAD BEEN
"MODIFIED" FOR LONGER RANGES up to 200-250 miles. That is
how such a radar
could track the V-2's up to altitudes above 100 MILES! Duh!!!
Here's what Moore says on the Project 1947 webpage:
"... the SCR-584 was
dedicated to tracking the V-2s and other rockets
being launched at WSPG. ...
"However, since the SCR-584's
maximum range was less than 40 miles,
it could provide no information
whatsoever on objects outside that range.
There was no way that the
information from it would be used inconjunction
with radars in Albuquerque (if
there were any at the 160 mile range) to plot
the location of the crash north of
Roswell, about 130 miles from the White
And as I said V-2's had been launched up to 100+ miles and tracked
since 1946. How was that possible if it's "maximum range"
was "less than 40
miles"? It was a MODIFIED SCR-584 that's how!
His comment that the radar "could provide no information
objects outside that range" is sheer poppycock and a complete
lie. Radars can
provide "information" on objects outside their maximum ranges
simply by virtue of
Second-Trip Echoes and Third-Trip Echoes and Nth-Trip
Echoes. A radar with a
unambiguous DISPLAY range of 40 miles can still display a target
at say 70
miles or 110 miles or 150 miles, etc., but it will be displayed
if it was at a range of only 30 miles (in this hypothetical
range is then said to be "ambiguous" but it will be detected if
the radar is
strong enough and target big enough. If the radar is
MODIFIED to display greater
ranges and/or if the pulse repetition frequency is altered then a
can be ACCURATELY displayed and will not be "ambiguous" then.
But Moore knows that his own Project MOGUL radars had been
modified to track
targets out to 200 miles or more because in late Aug 1947 one of
radars, the CPS-4 (Modified), detected unidentified stationary
targets at 200
miles altitude above the earth. So the whole pretense and
exercise about the
number and range limitations of radars at White Sands was a
complete sham and
outrageous pack of lies from beginning to end, willful deceit from
finish by someone who was in on the actual story from the
beginning and knew
what the truth was but lied through his teeth about it, just to
> Moore wasn't the one who was unhappy about AF
although Moore said
> publicly in newspaper interviews that UFOs should be seriously
> investigated. However, other General Mills people who
we interviewed were
> completely unimpressed by Ruppelt and refused to cooperate
with the AF when
> Ruppelt put them off by saying they should report to ADC.
> I do not agree that Moore engineered the Hynek
McDonald split. McD went
> to speak with Hynek in a very aggressive and accusatory mood
> Both Vallee and Hynek speak of him banging on the desk.
So, I don't think
> we can blame Moore for anything here....McD said in his head
he knew he
> should make peace with Hynek, but his heart wouldn't let him.
Why should McDonald get slammed and Moore get the defense
admitted HE LIED???? He ADMITTED it to McDonald who quite
Moore up after his unhappy confrontation with Hynek wanting to
know what the
hell happened. Moore clearly set him up, and had gone out of
his way to meet
with McDonald in Tucson on April 28, 1966, to tell him this pack
of lies and
distortions about Hynek. Moore did NOT apologize or try TO
MAKE AMENDS with
HYNEK to patch up the differences with McDonald, even though he
had known Hynek
(for 17 years) and McDonald both. Clearly he was quite
satisfied with the
outcome, a split between the two giants of scientific UFO studies,
newcomer McDonald burning his bridges with the leader Hynek (and
description of McDonald going to Hynek "in a very aggressive and
and manner" is just flatout FALSE. McDonald had a very good
long chat with
Hynek on a tour of the observatory for 1/2 hour on that climactic
day June 8,
1966, then met up with Vallee to go to lunch. It was only
when McDonald brought
up the lies Moore told him about Hynek wanting to publicly
confront the AF over
its mishandling of the UFO problem that the alleged desk-pounding
(possibly an apocryphal story that part). McDonald got upset
when Hynek didn't
know what the hell McDonald was even talking about, the very idea
confronting the AF publicly, and no doubt at that point McDonald
was not going to
reveal the existence of a source (Moore) telling him this,
thinking maybe he should
keep it confidential. Moore's setup worked exceedingly well,
better than he had hoped, but certainly with the outcome Moore
wanted as he DID
NOTHING TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE he had done.
> As far as Moore being pro-AF or anything.
He constantly made noise
> about a better scientific UFO investigation. He left
> because of a disagreement with the AF about the materials and
> in balloon products.