To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, shg@ns2.txbs.net
From: Francis Ridge <nicap@insightbb.com>
Subject: [SHG] Incident with C.B. Moore
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:11:15 -0700


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.
http://www.nicap.org/sands490424dir.htm

Fran


Date:         Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:50:51 -0400
From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Incident with C.B. Moore
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

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.

3.  Moore told us during an oral history interview that only one person at
Wright Patterson was interested enough in this sighting to do any type of
calculations.

4.  Project Grudge submitted Moore's case and the southern Oregon aircraft
case to Dr. Fitts for review.  Instead of performing any type of scientific
investigation, he just wrote back that the subject was not worthy of any
such investigation due to lack of reliable data.  (Since the Oregon case
was an object seen below the plane against the ground.  Calculation could
be made for various sizes of object and speeds.  So upper and lower limits
for the object's altitude, speed and size could have been calculated.

(The foregoing is certainly an indication of high level interest and cover
up. (Sarcasm alert!))

4.  Greenwood has proposed an explanation for this sighting in a two part
article in Just Cause.  Moore helped him with this article.  So the
directory is incomplete.

5.  As Brad has pointed out, Moore had no reference points with which to
determine size, speed and altitude.  His calculations are based on an
assumption.

6.  Moore was unhappy with Robert McLaughlin's article and felt McLaughlin
had misrepresented the sighting in that Moore did not work for him.

7.  McLaughlin said the methods of calculating the speed, altitude and size
of Moore's object were classified. Well, there are no methods of
calculating these factors, and there is certainly no magic secret formula.
Rather is it possible that the object was tracked on radar to which
McLaughlin may be referring.  There is no evidence on this anywhere in the
written record.

This sighting is very interesting historically.  It was one of the many
sightings by General Mills balloon personnel.  A General Mills official
wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the AF concerning sightings by the
scientists and technicians there.  Probably as a result, Ruppelt paid them
a visit.  In the draft version of his book, he disrespects the General
Mills people.  He did not request that further sightings be referred to
ATIC, but instead gave them the ADC CIRVIS reporting forms.  The General
Mills people did not like this treatment at all, and no further sightings
were reported to the Air Force.

I don't think this sighting is particularly evidential.

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Incident with C.B. Moore
To: shg@ns2.txbs.net, CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:41:05 EDT

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 noise.


Date:         Sun, 1 May 2005 03:52:04 EDT
From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: Incident with C.B. Moore
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

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 a blatant 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 supposedly
first told him the codename in 1992 (in fact Moore had a 1949 Cdr. McLaughlin
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 operations such
as Moore's, McLaughlin's and Van Allen's in the 40's), lies about there being
no radars at Holloman/White Sands in June 1947 so he could slam hoaxer Frank
Kauffman (you still haven't corrected this blatant historical falsehood on the
Project 1947 website), he lied through his teeth to McDonald about Hynek
wanting to publicly take on the AF and after McDonald found out differently Moore
admitted he "HAD NOT BEEN ENTIRELY HONEST" with McDonald (but nevertheless
succeeded in engineering the Sino-Soviet split between the two scientific giants
of UFOlogy, Hynek and McDonald), and lies about purportedly "reconstructing" a
MOGUL balloon trajectory that "exactly" pinpoints crashing on the Foster Ranch
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 the truth
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 comparison
(Adamski faked photos but I don't think he ever falsified a MAP, for example). 
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 lie. 

The truth is that the AF (and the Navy) not only took Moore's UFO sighting
report but had AFOSI INTERVIEW EVERYONE IN HIS CREW, and we have the crew
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 total lack
of interest, HQ USAF and AMC at Wright-Patterson were so interested in
Moore's April 24, 1949, UFO sighting that it circulated Moore's report throughout
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 Grudge with
the handover of AMC Intelligence Dept from pro-UFO Col. McCoy to anti-UFO Col.
Watson in Aug 1949.  In fact, this review process elicited a high
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 and had
expressed great interest, since there was absolutely nothing confidential about
that. 

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 crew members
back up the sighting, though their details do not fully agree with Moore's
(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 meteor fireball
explanation (which I have also attempted) then it should also include Bruce
Maccabee's refutation of that meteor explanation.  I can't answer Bruce's
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 distance and
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 pissed off
General Mills as a result.  Yeah right.)  Perhaps to throw us off the trail of his
AF connection? 


Date:         Sun, 1 May 2005 13:22:32 -0400
From: Jan Aldrich <project1947@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: Incident with C.B. Moore
Comments: To: Brad Sparks
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Brad,

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 tests, jets,
balloons, etc. were present during the Array, NM sighting.  Jan Aldrich
said this, because the files mention no such checks.

Please review McLaughlin's article.

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm

especially:

    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 altitude.)

    4.  Its speed was about 5 miles per second.

My conclusion is that McLaughlin is talking through his hat.  His
"ballistic expert" came up with these figures is either made an assumption
to get there or they had some method (probably radar) to measure these
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 Van Allen.

I would be very interested in your comments here!

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 his sighting.
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 existence.

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 (possibly
McLaughlin's "ballistic expert.")  (The submission to experts of the
southern Oregon case and Moore's sighting was something that Grudge was
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.)


Moore did no say there were no radars on White Sands.  He talked about
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 served and
need a large contingent to operate, not one man who couldn't be relieved
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 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 and manner.
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.

As far as Moore being pro-AF or anything.  He constantly made noise
about a better scientific UFO investigation.  He left General Mills,
because of a disagreement with the AF about the materials and specification
in balloon products.

Regards,
Jan


Date:         Mon, 2 May 2005 08:44:14 EDT
From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: Incident with C.B. Moore
To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

In a message dated 5/1/2005 9:30:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
project1947@earthlink.net writes:

> Subj: Re: Incident with C.B. Moore
>  Date: 5/1/2005 9:30:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>  From: project1947@earthlink.net
>  To: CURRENT-ENCOUNTERS@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, RB47x@AOL.COM
>  Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> Brad,
>
>   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 tests, jets,
> balloons, etc. were present during the Array, NM sighting.  Jan Aldrich
> said this, because the files mention no such checks.
>

Brad:

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 uninterested --
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 this purported
lack of interest by the AF (in fact his drafting of a letter to Keyhoe had
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 saying that
Moore had had to force his report onto the local military offices at White
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 settle the
issue as to what exactly Moore said by QUOTING him verbatim?

As I pointed out earlier, the "local" AFOSI investigated Moore's sighting
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 report had
circulated so far and wide it made it into the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence
files (I can't find my copy but I recall the Received stamp date at "CIA/OSI"
was like May 6 or 10, 1949).  By May 18, AMC personnel had discussed Moore's
sighting with his boss or former boss Dr James Peoples of AMC Watson
Labs/Cambridge Geophysical Research Directorate who had received a copy of the report
from Moore.

Moore's sighting generated so much AF interest that even that anti-UFO
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 UFO case
conclusion by Watson on record (undated Watson AMC memo to Maj. Boggs AFOIN
Defensive Air Branch prob. circa Aug 1949).


>   Please review McLaughlin's article.
>
> http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm
>
> especially:
>
>   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 altitude.)
>
>   4.  Its speed was about 5 miles per second.
>
> My conclusion is that McLaughlin is talking through his hat.  His
> "ballistic expert" came up with these figures is either made an assumption
> to get there or they had some method (probably radar) to measure these
> 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 Van Allen.
>
>  I would be very interested in your comments here!

Brad:

Instead of picking on some non-scientist's jumble of figures, why not
examine scientist-engineer Moore's incredibly incompetent elementary math
instead??  Apparently Moore was just as bad with arithmetic (subtraction and
division) in 1949 as he was in the 90's and 2001 (when it was deliberate falsification
mixed with gross error, conveniently uncorrected).  Moore's widely repeated
angular velocity or (actually) azimuth change of the UFO of 5 degrees per
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 PEOPLE!!),
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 Fire Controlman
William Akers reported the angular velocity as about 1.5 degrees per second,
and his and the other crew members' data yield figures in the 1-3 degs/sec
range.

These errors by Moore greatly reduce the speed estimates by 25% to 80%.


> 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 his sighting.
> 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 existence.
>

Brad:

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 Navy.

Those May 1949 AFOSI memos instructing OSI in NM to comply with reporting
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 had ordered
them, on his April 27, 1949, visit, to be specifically kept secret from AMC.
AFOSI ordered the compartmentation to be broken and that all the reports be
sent to AMC so AMC would see that AF Intelligence and AF Scientific Advisory
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 Twinkle, and
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 (possibly
> McLaughlin's "ballistic expert.")  (The submission to experts of the
> southern Oregon case and Moore's sighting was something that Grudge was
> 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.)
>

Brad:

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 offices within
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 case, in
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 be relieved
> 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 with outright
knowing willful lies and deviously fabricated and fictitious assertions, and is
posted unanswered and unrefuted on Project 1947's Roswell pages despite YEARS
of my complaints about its outrageous falsehoods and lies.  Moore claims that
Frank Kaufmann ("Steve MacKenzie") could not have used what he (Moore) claimed
was the ONE and only aircraft tracking radar at White Sands, an SCR-584,
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 least FOUR
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 falsely
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 had a
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
       Sands radar."

And as I said V-2's had been launched up to 100+ miles and tracked by radar
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 whatsoever on
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 "ambiguously" as
if it was at a range of only 30 miles (in this hypothetical example).  The
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 greater range
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 the modified
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 start to
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 ridicule a
Roswell hoaxer.


>   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 and manner.
> 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.
>

Brad:

Why should McDonald get slammed and Moore get the defense when Moore
admitted HE LIED????  He ADMITTED it to McDonald who quite understandably called
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, with the
newcomer McDonald burning his bridges with the leader Hynek (and Vallee).  Your
description of McDonald going to Hynek "in a very aggressive and accusatory mood
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 occurred
(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 of
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, maybe far
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 General Mills,
> because of a disagreement with the AF about the materials and specification
> in balloon products.