Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


Blog powered by Typepad
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

« Seeing Red in the Caribbean | Main | Jane Fonda and Her Friendly North Vietnamese Intelligence Officer »

11 July 2011


Stanton T. Friedman

As a nuclear physicist with two physics degrees from the University of Chicago and 14 years of experience working on classified advanced nuclear technology programs for GE, GM, Westinghouse Astronuclear Lab, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and as the original civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident and author or co-author of five books and having been to 20 archives, and lectured at more than 600 colleges and more than 100 professional groups, I certainly deny the notion of being a conspiracy theorist. Why are no books cited by those of us who have done serious and extended investigations as opposed to the proclamations by debunkers? They don't get dates and details about Roswell straight.They ignore the relevant evidence. I, too, have done a strongly negative review of "Area 51," but I cite facts not false proclamations. How about getting your facts straight guys?
Stanton T. Friedman

Kevin D. Randle

I’m sorry but I can’t let this pass. You suggest that Annie Jacobsen was less than careful in her research but fall into the same trap when you offer the Project MOGUL explanation for what fell outside Roswell (okay, Corona), New Mexico in 1947.

Project MOGUL was not classified in 1947. Dr. Albert Crary, the lead scientist, used the name “MOGUL” in his unclassified diary as printed by the Air Force. This disproves the statements by one of the project engineers, Charles Moore, that it was so highly classified they didn’t even know the name in 1947.

The equipment used for the MOGUL experiences was not some sort of new balloon (polyethylene) but were, in fact, off-the-shelf neoprene weather balloons and rawin radar reflectors, then in common use in New Mexico. Tying them together in a large array would certainly not inhibit the identification of the balloons and radar target by anyone, including the rancher who found it.

Dr. Crary’s diary suggests that flight number four, the culprit identified by the Air Force, did not fly as an experiment. It had been canceled. Charles Moore told me that when that happened, they stripped the equipment but let the balloons go because “they couldn’t put the helium back in the bottles.”

Those in Roswell knew about the experiments because, as Moore told me, they had gone to Roswell to explain what they were doing and ask for they help in tracking and recovering the balloons.

Not to mention that the CAA (forerunner to the FAA) required a NOTAM about the launches because the arrays could pose a threat to aerial navigation.

Pictures of the MOGUL launches appeared in the newspapers starting on 10 July 1947, which is a darn funny way to treat a highly classified project. (BTW, only the ultimate purpose was classified, not the experiments.)

I wonder why you have not put the Air Force reports under the same microscope with which you examined Jacobsen’s book. If you are to accuse her of not knowing her history, shouldn’t you be aware of the history you use against her? In other words, how is it that you have let the Air Force slip by with their cover story and you haven’t asked even the basic questions (Such as: How come they interviewed five men associated with MOGUL but didn’t even talk to those who were in Roswell and were involved with the recovery? These included two Air Force generals. And yes, I know why they didn’t talk to the generals.).

And, no, for the record, none of this proves that what fell outside Roswell was an alien ship, but then it does suggest that whatever it was, it was not a Project MOGUL balloon array.

Christopher Allan

I suggest anyone who wonders whether Stanton Friedman is indeed a conspiracy theorist reads just a few of his many papers on UFOs, as well as his books, particularly the one entitled "Top Secret Majic." They can then decide. It shouldn't take them long.

Stanton T. Friedman

I agree with Christopher Allan. Read my books "TOP SECRET/MAJIC," "Flying Saucers and Science," and "Crash at Corona," plus the articles posted at my website etc. I deal with facts and data and evidence, something about which he knows little. Investigation is required not blind proclamation. Norris and Richelson should turn their microscope on the Roswell USAF reports.They would find a great deal of misrepresentation.

Andy McDonald

Aside from the questionable factual accuracy of the book, I simply found it drawn out so thinly, with so much hyperbole, that it became unreadable. It reminded me of a reality show: the material never lives up to the hype, and there are no shortages of "coming up..." cliffhangers. From a writing standpoint, you could have easily cut a few hundred pages from it, but I supposed as time goes on, every "DEFINITIVE" Area 51 will need to be bigger, longer, and more uncut (read: unedited).

Al Dorman

I enjoyed reading this rejoinder to Jacobsen but it didn't really answer any of my questions either. I agree that the Stalin/Mengele idea seems pretty extravagant and thinly sourced, but you didn't really do much to argue against it. You're still left with MOGUL balloons and crash-test dummies . . .

Mark Mansfield

I agree that her explanation for Roswell incident seems rather implausible. It would be an incredible feat for the Russians to land/crash a craft in Roswell, NM in 1947, particularly one with technology sufficient to mystify American scientists of the times. That being said I think some of the criticisms here are invalid. She states that more could have been learned from Project 57 IF there was a contemporaneous cleanup, not citing one that did not exist as you seem to imply. She also did indicate that a great deal of contaminated snow and ice was removed from Greenland to South Carolina, she did not omit this fact as you allege. However she may have gotten the "lost nuke" story wrong. Yes, she chose to focus her account primarily on U2/Oxcart. Could she have written more on the F117 and later programs? Probably so, but hey, it is still a 400-pp book as is. I would hope in your criticism of her account of the nuclear tests in the '50-'60s you would not be alleging that much of the activity was not in retrospect highly irresponsible and damaging not just to the environment of NV but possibly more broadly as well.

Teknik Telekomunikasi

Pertanyaan singkat: "Dalam bab berjudul 'The MiGs of Area 51' yang berisi 16 halaman, dibahas MiG-21 yang diperoleh ketika seorang kolonel Angkatan Udara Irak terbangkannya ke Israel pada tahun 1966, dan Israel kemudian mengirimkannya ke Amerika Serikat. Namun, sebagian besar bab fokus pada latar belakang individu dan keterlibatan mereka dalam program seperti X-15 NASA. Ada sedikit informasi tentang berbagai aktivitas terkait MiG yang melibatkan versi yang lebih canggih—informasi yang telah muncul di Aviation Week & Space Technology dan, yang lebih penting, dalam buku tahun 2008 berjudul Red Eagles: America’s Secret MiGs. Mengapa pembahasan dalam bab ini lebih berfokus pada latar belakang individu dan program-program seperti X-15 daripada mengeksplorasi aktivitas MiG yang lebih canggih seperti yang diuraikan dalam sumber-sumber lain?"

Quick question: "In the chapter entitled 'The MiGs of Area 51' which contains 16 pages, it discusses MiG-21s that were acquired when an Iraqi Air Force colonel flew them to Israel in 1966, and Israel then sent them to the United States. However, most chapters focus on individual backgrounds and their involvement in programs such as NASA's in 2008 entitled Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs. Why does the discussion in this chapter focus more on the background of individuals and programs such as the X-15 rather than exploring more advanced MiG activities as described in other sources?"

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Washington Decoded