Talk:Project Mogul

message: Blah blah blah. Anyway, what is Project Moby Dick, and if it stirred up such protest, why is there not a Wikipedia article about it? 64.90.198.6 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other news 

message: Could this article have more information? What was the motivation behind this, if russians didnt test their first bomb yet? And it was stopped before the first test? What was the point then?--83.131.131.174 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more info?

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This is no place for a debate between ufologists and skeptics. Only the facts about Project Mogul should be included in the article.  Passing judgment on a controversial topic which is not directly related, is beyond the scope of this article.Landroo (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an article about Project Mogul, not the Roswell Incident. 

message: Shouldn't the Pages be rather neutral?
The Mogul pages basically says "The UFO thing is made up!"
While the Roswell UFO page rather sounds like "...and then they came up with "Mogul" to cover it up"
That's kinda weird how the 2 wiki pages seem to be fighting each other...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.248.239 (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoint 

message: Dr Fil inserted the following text a while ago, and there have been other recent attempts to insert text which suggest that a Mogul flight could not have been connected to the Roswell UFO incident
However, the alleged Flight #4 does not exist in Mogul's own records, said to have been cancelled because of cloudy weather, according to project scientist Albert Crary's diary. Similarly, the previously planned Flights #2 and #3 were also cancelled and thus absent from the records. Instead, the records show Flight #5 from the next day, June 5, 1947, as being the first actual Mogul flight in New Mexico. 
This is the standard pro-UFO assertion that has been around for 20 years. By suggesting there was no flight on the particular day that the "Mogul" explanation would work (the wind conditions that day meant a lost balloon could have ended up where the Roswell debris was found, not true on other days) if it was to explain the Roswell UFO incident, the UFO crowd asserts the debris found could not have been part of the program, the near-identical descriptions of what flew for Mogul and what was described by witnesses to the UFO incident notwithstanding.
This pro-UFO explanation, however, is a bald-faced lie. They like to quote the mentioned diary which states: Jun 4 Wed. Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 and 06 this am. No balloon flights again on account of clouds. They then state, "see? No flight! Therefore Mogul can't explain Roswell!" However, this is not the complete diary entry for that day. It continues: Flew regular sonobuoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver on ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 to 2400. As one can see, a flight DID go up that day and , since no record of the flight was made other than the mention here, it most probably was lost and therefore it can account for the debris as subsequent flights used material and tracking methods not consistent with the Roswell debris. Charles Moore stated on the issue of what happened to failed flights: "Only those flights in which an attempt was made to control the altitude of the balloon are included in the summary. Excluded are flights made to test special gear and launchings which were not successful." Since Flight 4 was launched, as per the diary, but no record was made, it was a lost balloon in all likelihood. 
I do have a quibble with what the article states, and this comes sourced from a recent author who has this basic fact wrong: The Air Force did NOT know, specifically, what the recovered material was in 1947, so there was no "cover up" of Mogul then. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Dr Fil is always trying to weasel pro-UFO stuff into Wikipedia. Thanks for spelling out the facts for us, since we won't get them from him. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and again!

message: Hey all, I just wanted to ask people who are knowledgeable about this. Basically, everywhere I look I see that flight 4 took place however many pro-UFO people say that flight 4 never took place and everybody knew about MOGUL. Example:
"Problem: there was no Mogul launch during the period of the Roswell debris finding. We have the records of Albert Crary, who was assistant to the head scientist on the Mogul project. There was supposed to be a launch, launch 4, but it was cancelled.
Mogul also wasn't secret. Pictures of Mogul launches had been published in the press.
It seems odd that the army officers at Roswell who were familiar with the highest level of secret US technology would not recognise the Mogul scraps.
Mogul was the last in a line of sundry explanations for Roswell by the USAF. The stories changed several times over the decades and I'm not convinced I should believe them on this one.
Other than that, I have no further comments, as I feel Roswell has become a big red herring."
from: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/2avipn/what_do_you_think_of_this_post_about_roswell_on/
Is there any veracity to this claim? I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, I just don't understand why people say it didn't take place if every reputable source says so, it makes no sense to me. Thank you.90.249.207.48 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources (WP:RS) say about any given subject. If your pro-UFO people have no reliable sources that can be cited to support whatever it is they are saying, then the issue is moot. In short, we aren’t obligated to disprove an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant alone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah fair enough, so it seems like it's just people with confirmation bias using cherry picking data as above it seems that a uses explained that people use part of a quote to say flight 4 didn't take place but the rest of the quote actually confirms it did take place. Funny how confirmation bias works.90.249.207.48 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question about flight 4