|From: Brad Sparks
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:55:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited
>From: Manuel Borraz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 03:00:54 +0200
>Fwd Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:11:07 -0400
>Subject: Re: Ft. Monmouth Revisited - Borraz
>On September 10, 1951, while flying at 20,000 ft
from a Delaware
>to a Long Island airbase, two experienced fighter pilots in a
>T-33 jet spotted an object "round and silver in color" which
>one stage of the attempted intercept appeared flat. The T-33
>put into a descending turn to try to close on the object but
>latter turned more tightly (the airmen stated) and passed
>rapidly eastward towards the coast of New Jersey and out to
>at an estimated speed of around 900 mph.
>The official explanation pointed to a balloon. In
>balloons were launched in the area shortly before the
I am curious (to use one of the favorite words of my
friend Phil Klass)
why you suddenly developed an interest in this case at this time?
Are there other similar cases you are planning to examine?
I am puzzled that you recognize the fact right here at
the outset that
there were _TWO_ balloons not one, launched together at the same time
the same location (which you fail to mention), but there was only _ONE_
UFO, yet you never mention the two Balloons again? In a few
you mention "balloons" plural vaguely but in several Places you
talk about "the balloon" and "a balloon." Is there any reason why
you never mention two balloons again? I am impelled to point this
out each time below because this omission is fatal to your
How did you know there were two balloons launched?
you mention that they were not just vaguely "launched in the area" _as
if_ unrelated to each other and in different locations, but launched at
the exact same time at the exact same location? Both balloons
tracked by radar together until they exploded at 104,000 feet some 79
later, at an average ascent rate of about 1,300 ft/min, which will be
important for the analysis below.
The facts refuting the balloon theory are many:
1. There were TWO BALLOONS ascending together but
only ONE UFO.
Two objects were never seen by the two pilots in the T-33.
2. The two balloons were ABOVE the T-33 and could
never have been
seen "silhouetted" against the ground and water as the UFO was during
entire sighting, but would _always_ have been seen against the blue
(The balloons were at about 27,000 feet rising to about
but the T-33 was at 20,000 feet descending to 17,000 feet. The
was at an estimated height of 5,000 to 8,000 feet descending to about
3. If the T-33 was located at about 3 miles
northeast of Asbury
Park, heading NNE, as shown on an aeronautical chart in the Project
file, then the two balloons near Asbury Park would not have been first
seen nearly in front of the aircraft (at 11 o'clock position) as
but nearly _behind_ the aircraft (at about 7 o'clock position).
4. If the balloons were somehow at the 11 o'clock
slightly to the left of straight ahead, then the T-33 in making a left
turn to head towards the UFO (supposedly the balloons) would have been
heading straight at them in only 30 seconds and there would have been
reason to continue the 120° turn off of course for the Mitchel (not
"Mitchell") Field base. Continuing the turn, the balloons would have
on the _RIGHT_ of the T-33 from then on. Yet the crew always saw
the UFO on the _LEFT_.
5. The two balloons were so small and so far away
the Grudge map they would not have been noticed as they would have been
near the threshold of human visual resolution.
6. The UFO was observed descending. The two
7. The UFO was seen as a flat disc shape when
balloons were approximately spherical.
8. The UFO was roughly plotted at a speed
estimated at about 1,050
to 1,740 mph (30-50 nautical miles in 2 minutes) and the T-33 at 550
was not able to overtake the balloons. As the T-33 finished its
turn it should have ran right into the alleged balloons.
>But many years later, J. E. McDonald questioned
>"The possibility that a pilot can be misled by depth
>errors and coordinate-reference errors to misconstrue a
>balloon as a fast-maneuvering object must always be kept in
>mind. But in the Ft. Monmouth instance, as in many others
>could be discussed in detail, there is a very large gap
>the balloon hypothesis and the facts."
>A good deal of information about this incident and
>can be found at:
Since you very commendably refer to the above NICAP
website did you
read over the material there before launching your revisitation of the
long refuted balloon explanation below?
>I will try to show that the balloon explanation was
>probable indeed. To follow the discussion below I strongly
>recommend to take a look at the map at:
Here are some strong arguments against the weather
balloon theory in
the material at the NICAP website which you do not mention had been
by the T-33 pilot Lt Wilbert S. Rogers literally on Day One of the
reporting back in 1951. Fifty years later we should recognize
this faulty theory has been challenged right from the outset by the key
"This couldn't have been a balloon," Rogers said,
"because it was descending
and no balloon goes that fast."
(United Press, Sept 11, 1951:
Wash Daily News, Sept 11, 1951: www.nicap.org/images/fmS11g.gif.
See also NY World-Telegram & Sun, Sept 11, 1951:
"This couldn't have been a balloon, because it was
descending" he said.
"And besides, no balloon goes that fast." (Associated Press, Sept
11, 1951: www.nicap.org/fmS10p4.htm
"Lt. Rogers reported . . . It was descending in an arc
fashion dispelling the idea that it might be a weather balloon, one of
the explanations Air Force and Navy officials have given for flying
(NY Herald Tribune, Sept. 12, 1951:
" 'This couldn't have been a balloon. It was
describing a descending
arc as we got within 8,000 feet of it. And it was going at twice
our maximum speed. No balloon flies that fast. Why, we
have caught it in a World's record F-86 Saber jet.' " (INS, Sept
According to Ruppelt's unpublished papers, "It is
interesting to note
that weeks later, when we proved at least to my satisfaction that the
was a balloon, the two officers said that we were nuts. They found
holes in our analysis."
>(I thank Matias Morey -Fundacion Anomalia's
>putting up the image in the net.)
>I've taken the map from Willy Smith's book "On
Pilots and UFOs"
>(UNICAT PROJECT, 1997; chapter 1). According to Smith, it's
>copy of the overlay included in Project Grudge, Report No. 1,
>Nov. 1951, p.28, with the exact initial and final locations
>the balloons added."
That doesn't make the map accurate -- it isn't. It
to try to fit the sequence of sighting lines to the balloons that you
in that was in fact first suggested by Project Grudge. Grudge
could not even agree as to how much of an alleged discrepancy there was
in the T-33 ground track between the two pilots -- in the interrogation
report transcript this is said to be 10 nautical miles, in the Grudge
Report this is given as 5 nautical miles. There shouldn't be any
difference in these two numbers at all, it's a simple matter of
with a ruler. The initial location of the T-33 shown on the
chart in the Grudge files from interviews with the pilots is about 10
miles from the Pt. Pleasant location stated by Lt. Rogers.
>Let's take, for instance, five equally spaced points
>trajectories of the T-33 and the UFO and let's draw a line
>connecting each pair of points for a given time (that is,
>assuming -to do the things simpler - that both the T-33 and
>UFO didn't vary their speed; in fact, the object is said to
>kept a constant speed, but the jet increased its speed when
>started to turn). What we obtain -see the red lines added to
>map- are the approximate directions of the line of sight from
>T-33 to UFO during the incident.
>Surprisingly, all the lines cross at a small area
>triangle marked in the figure).
This is feigned "surprise" and an intentionally designed
Project Grudge specifically drew the map so as to see if it could
a flight path that would cross at approximately the same location so as
to fit the balloon hypothesis.
Everything about this map is wrong -- the T-33 is
located wrong and
the balloons are located wrong. Your convergence zone in the
is almost directly above the launch site near Belmar and would require
that the winds were only 5 mph or less from nearly due S instead of
12-17 mph (10-15 knots) from the SSW.
>Therefore it's conceivable that
>a fixed or slow moving object located there were misperceived
>the fast moving and more distant object reported by the
>As we can see in the map, the assumed distance to the UFO
>throughout the incident evolve likewise the distance to this
>area where the lines of sight cross.
>Before going on, note that
>the area in question is near the launching site of the
>(though it doesn't coincide exactly with their estimated
Why does it not "coincide exactly"? The
intersection area is several
miles too far to the west of where the two balloons would have
>But if the observers saw a balloon, why did they
>banking? If the balloon was below the jet, it should have
>seen "descending" on approach. It's just a perceptive
The UFO was seen silhouetted against the ground whereas
were higher and against the blue sky. It's not "a" balloon or
balloon but _two_ balloons and they were ABOVE the T-33, at about
feet rising to nearly 30,000 feet in the two minutes of the _one_ UFO
If the balloons were lower than the T-33 how is it
possible that the
T-33 did not fly right over or into the balloons if they were nearly
ahead and the T-33 turned left into the direction of the
There is no perspective illusion here. If the T-33
of its turn in the 2 minutes of the sighting then the T-33 would have
the approximately 30° to head straight towards the UFO (the
balloons) in only 30 seconds. Why was the T-33 never able to head
straight towards the balloons?
The answer is simple: The UFO made a "banking"
left turn and curved
in towards the inside of the T-33's left turn. The T-33 could not
bring its nose to point straight towards the UFO which OUTMANEUVERED
>And how to reconcile the estimated altitude of the
>about 17,000-18,000 feet and the reported UFO altitude of
The two balloons were _not_ at 17,000-18,000 feet but at
feet. Their ascent rate was about 1,300 feet/min. They were
launched at 11:12 the UFO sighting was 23 minutes later at 11:35.
Do the math.
After 79 minutes both balloons burst at 104,000
feet. Do the math.
>What the map indicates after calculations is
>that if the airmen at 20,000 feet over Point Pleasant were to
>see the balloon aligned with the UFO over Sandy Hook, the
>altitude of the balloon should be of the order of
>feet. All of this makes sense.
No it doesn't make sense, it's all fabricated, forced to
try to fit
multiple balloons that were still in the wrong location and high above
>What about the disappearance of the object
over the ocean? I've
>found contradictory data about the time of the event (same
>quoted as EDST or EDT depending on the source).
These are the _same_ time zones/standards. EDST is
the same as
EDT. If the T-33 sighting time was really EST as you seem to
then you will have shot your balloon theory in the head because the
Signal Labs teletype clearly reports launch time of the balloons as
That means a sighting by the T-33 at 11:35 EST would be 12:35 EDST and
that is 4 minutes after the two balloons burst at the same time at
feet at 12:31 EDST. These daylight savings times are also
in the ATIC interrogation report transcript (see: http://www.nicap.org/fm016.htm
So if the T-33 sighting was using EST then the two
balloons would have
burst already at extreme altitude totally invisible to the naked
>In any case,
>what matters is that the Sun was S or ESS at about 50º over
>horizon. Hence it should be considered the reflection of
>rays on a balloon getting more and more against the sun
>from the position of the moving observers.
If the two balloons were in fact _ABOVE_ the T-33 up
against the bright
sky. Background in the sun's glare they might have never been visible
the first place, aside from being too small in subtended angular size
be noticeable to the human eye.
>At this point, we may wonder why did J. E. McDonald
>balloon explanation. If we reread his arguments the answer
>Basically, McDonald stated that "at no time in the
>involved could the line of sight from T-33 to balloon have
>intersected Freehold" and, also, that the balloon "would have
>subtended an arc of only 0.6 min, as seen from the T-33 when
>latter passed over Pt. Pleasant", an angular size much too
>to fit the airmen's descriptions of the object. The problem
>that McDonald assumed that the balloons had been released
>the Evans Signal Laboratory "near Ft. Monmouth". But
>to Willy Smith (who doesn't appear to realize that MacDonald
>in error), these facilities were near Belmar, south of Ft.
>Monmouth. With the correct location of the launching point in
>mind (see map) the above arguments doesn't apply anymore.
If the T-33 was really at Pt. Pleasant (this is in
doubt) and started
turning left immediately (as Lt. Rogers reported he did), the balloons
due north near Asbury Park would never have been seen off farther to
left near Freehold, NJ. McDonald's point stands. This is simple
For the T-33 to fly to a position from which the
balloons over Asbury
Park could be seen lying to the W towards Freehold, the T-33 would have
had to fly straight along its original course towards Mitchel Field
turning left _at all_ until nearly at the end of the sighting (about
minutes into the 2 minutes, so that it could travel the 12 miles or so
to a spot east of Asbury Park). This contradicts Lt. Rogers
that he had immediately started his left turn towards the UFO upon
UFO UpDates is A UFO & Related Phenomena E-Mail List
Errol Bruce-Knapp: email@example.com
UFO UpDates archive is found at http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates