Project Mogul is NOT the Cause of the Roswell Incident

I do have problems with many ETH groups, but my opponent's conduct was stellar and I look forward to our future debates. I will address my opponent's rebuttals briefly and conclude my argument. My opponent, again, shows photographs of weather balloons so as to conclude the PM balloons were too similar to known weather balloons to be of much notice. I already addressed this point referencing Mueller's work on the declassification documents. The diagram my opponent provides from sciop is grainy and I simply cannot read it. I cannot confirm that balloon is even a diagram of the same type of balloon found at the Roswell crash site. I maintain the object found was not a typical PM balloon and I have supported this contention. My opponent takes issue with my assessment of his source, and claims I used an ad hominem attack when referencing Dr. Galganski's work. I did no such thing. I referenced Galganski as a UFO buff because the basis of his work was the conflicting eye witness testimony from various sources. He could easily have taken other eyewitness accounts and come to the opposite conclusion. He chose the accounts that best supported his preconceived notion concerning the ETH. His work is not scientific as no scientist worth his salt would attempt to make such a bold conclusion based on faulty premises. Galganski will not accept any evidence contradicting his position as with many pseudoscience adherents. He is highly vested in the ETH and his poor work and analysis supports this insurmountable bias. His work should be disregarded. The best he could have hoped for is the assessment is claiming the evidence was inconclusive. I agree the debris field evidence is spotty and accounts of the amount are contradicting. As such, I offered the Csiop report to show how he made too many assumptions in his work. I do not accept the demonstration provided for the TV special as the experiment could not fix the exact parameters of the original crash. All of this is inconclusive at best, and Dr. Galganski should have known better than to present such spotty work. The majority of my opponent's sources are derived from pro ETH sites. I read all of them and did not dismiss them as quacks or anything of that nature. I examined them and made reasonable conclusions from the materials. Others would not be so kind. My opponent offers more reports and accurately explains many are contradictory. I agree. His assessment of Moore's evaluations may indeed be correct. I reviewed Moore's work and could not come to a solid position concerning his statements; therefore, I only used his materials as verified by Mueller. Moore claimed he was not aware of the name Mogul, but the source verifying this came from a 1948 document cited by Mueller. If Mueller became aware later, then he may indeed have lied about it, but I did not rely on Moore's work unless it was confirmed in the declassification report. Any other reference to Moore is irrelevant to my position. The last contention I will address is the rebuttal from Stanton Friedman. I own Friedman's book "Top Secret/Majic" 1996, 1997 First Marlow and Company edition. I have little respect for people who use academic credentials to peddle pseudoscience. Friedman is described as "NOT a UFO buff (emphasis in original). He IS the most outspoken, best known and most trusted scientific ufologist in North America (emphasis in original). Back cover, Top Secret/Majic. I ask voters to review the debunking Friedman offers as I see it as a rant. Much of his info comes from personal interviews he conducted and any contrary accounts are dismissed, claiming the individual was intimidated. I reviewed the document and considered it a rant and I did find his final statement to be humorous. "Suffice to say that the Skeptical Inquirer provides many examples of the intellectual bankruptcy of the pseudoscience of anti-ufology. " Not only did he invent a nice label for himself, he even created a reverse label, "anti-ufology". I find his work has little merit and is more of a defense of his unverified accounts of interviews of nameless individuals than a rebuttal of the PM explanation. I listed 12 points in my opening round and my opponent addressed one. I maintain all 12 points and see no need to repeat them, as those contentions withstood my opponent's rebuttals, and serve now as my conclusion.