Why don't you answer my questions? I asked, "perhaps you can explain why the Rogue River case is an excellent example of a UFO while other cases (like Zond IV) are not?" Can you explain this to us?
Umm...okay.
In Condon (
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap02.htm#S3 - you really should have provided a link to the original source material)
We find Table 2: Selected Conceptions Generated by Zond IV Re-entry* (p. 951 - where “*” represents “Based in effect, on about 30 relatively complete reports out of a total file of 78.”) and Hartmann states:
(…relatively complete?)
“In all, there are some 78 reports, but only about 30 detailed letters or forms attempting to give a complete description are appropriate for analysis. There are only 12 Air Force report forms from which one can study the variations in response to specific questions; e.g. angular size, velocity, etc.” (p.950)
We are left of course with the possibility that the excluded 48 reports stated “Oh it was the re-entry of some space junk” or similar statements. – which would of course make them CORRECT assessments – but of course we will never know unless we have access to the Blue Book files – which we do not – so we must discount these reports – even thought they COULD have been entirely accurate!
My bet would be that if Hartmann thought the reports to be inaccurate he would have INCLUDED them in his following assessments of the reports so I think we are safe in assuming those 48 reports to be more or less accurate.
Indeed this assertion is supported by Hartman’s statement:
“It is a selection effect by which the least accurate reports are made more prominent (since the observer becomes highly motivated to make a report), while the most accurate reports may not be recorded. In the case of Zond IV the two most lengthy unsolicited reports described the apparition as a cigar-shaped craft with a row of lighted windows and a fiery tail, while the correct identifications as a re-entry were short, in some cases recovered only by later solicitation of reports.”(p.953)
We are left, nevertheless with 30 reports examined. But are we? Hartmann states:
“A range of conceptions are illustrated by the 12 report forms plus 5 highly detailed accounts, and are summarized in Table 2. (p. 953)”
My count on this latter statement is that there were 17 reports…not 30… Hmmm… does not inspire confidence in the figures Hartmann is citing does it…
Nevertheless…
From the “30” reports, Hartmann distils some 123 “descriptions” of the Zond IV. Of those 123 “descriptions”, Hartmann considered 48 (39%) to be accurate, leaving 75 “descriptions” as “reportedly” inaccurate.
Let us examine those descriptions. But for context, first the report itself:
“At about 9:45 p.m. EST on 3 March, hundreds of American observers near a line from Kentucky to Pennsylvania saw a majestic procession of fiery objects with sparkling golden orange tails move across their sky. The spacecraft was disintegrating upon re-entry. Most observers saw two or three main pieces, while observers near the end of the path saw more. These objects were soon identified by NORAD as pieces of the Zond IV probe or its rocket booster and this identification was finally confirmed 1 July 1968 (Sullivan, 1968).) (p. 949)
(“OR” its’ rocket booster…? Even the people that put it there were not certain what it was people observed! Perhaps there WAS something else there… however… let’s not nitpick…)
Now Hatmann’s assessments:
17 reported “formation”. Hartman considers this to be inaccurate. Actually this is an entirely accurate description of a re-entering object(s), breaking up into pieces and burning up on re-entry, particularly as described above. That leaves 58 “inaccurate” descriptions.
Interestingly Hartmann states: “Of 17 observers, four chose to describe a "formation," and two, "windows." (p. 953) Now Hartmann has reported that there were 17 descriptions of a “formation”. Add that to Hartmann’s confusion over the number of reports examined in Table 2 (was it 30 or was it 17?) and this raises some critical issues with the accuracy of Hartmann’s assessment. I will tackle that issue below, but you can probably guess at what I am going to say!
Now…
13 “Estimate altitude or distance < 20 mi.” Now this is NOT actually a description of the object. It is an estimate of distance from the observer. This does NOT mean the witnesses misidentified the object itself as ANYTHING other than it WAS, it was merely a distance misperception. We can then discount these “descriptions” as an inaccurate misidentification of the object itself. So this leaves 45.
7 “Report rocket- or cigar-shape, or "saucer" shape”…
But below that we have:
5 “Report cigar-shape or rocket-shape”… This is double counting! Now Hatrmann’s statistical analysis and manipulation and reporting of numbers is brought into Serious question. This is the third time we have identified a spurious reporting method or error. Even if we allow Hartmann the original 7 we must take away the 5 and so now we have 40.
Going through the rest of Table 2. we can subtract other “descriptions” as potentially accurate (for example 1 description stated “Report reaction of animal”… now this is counted by Hartmann as an inaccurate description of the object… 2 reports of noise… but that could have come from a separate source altogether… another 5 with an inaccurate distance estimate … and a further 6 describing a “curvature” in the motion of the object…
So even at this early stage, from the original 123 discrete “descriptions” of the Zond IV (or its’ booster rocket, we are not sure which…WAS there TWO separate events?), we have remaining about 30 inaccurate descriptions of 123, which is approximately 25% of all descriptions were “inaccurate”…so far…)
Now we have another consideration to account for. How many “descriptions” are contained within one report? AND what is the ratio of accurate descriptions to inaccurate in the one report.
We don’t know directly, but we DO have a number of clues to this.
The first is Astrophotographer’s witness testimony. She was one witness, yet her report contained “cigar” shape, large object (Hartmann counts this as inaccurate and we have not subtracted the 10 “descriptions from the above assessment), clear outline, windows, lights (again another Hartman category) and change of motion (speed changed). Now there are other possible candidates for inaccurate descriptions contained within that one report but we will be generous and stop there. This is then 6 inaccurate descriptions in the one report (remember we were only left with 30 of the original 123 so 6 in one report is 20% of the whole of the inaccuracies in just one report!). Was this report unusual in any way – that is, was it representative of the inaccurate reports or not?
Hartmann states:
“It is a selection effect by which the least accurate reports are made more prominent (since the observer becomes highly motivated to make a report), while the most accurate reports may not be recorded. In the case of Zond IV the two most lengthy unsolicited reports described the apparition as a cigar-shaped craft with a row of lighted windows and a fiery tail, while the correct identifications as a re-entry were short, in some cases recovered only by later solicitation of reports.”(p.953)
First we note that Hartmann is implying that the more inaccurate the report the more details are included, with the single most accurate reports, never even reported.
So potentially we have out of the original 78 reports, a mere handful (perhaps 5 or 6) of reports that were in reality inaccurate that is a mere 6% which is barely significant!
Also we have no idea of the character, reliability, responsibility of the witnesses who made inaccurate reports. We know one was the Mayors wife… but does that make her a reliable witness? We cannot say…but certainly we know her account was unreliable.
Astrophotographer asks:
We have shape, size, structure, and altitude, which is very similar to what happened at Rogue River. Why do you state they can not be comparable? What makes Rogue River so special? Is it because it is an exotic craft? Isn't the Zond IV description an exotic craft as well? Why can't the Zond IV be examined for inaccuracies in the witness testimony? Why did the witness misidentify the shape, which should not happen with witness testimony?
We can see immediately that his first contention is absolutely incorrect. On any account the shape, size and structure of the Zond IV (or was it and/or the rocket booster?) was entirely different that the Rogue River object. More, the Zond IV was an object re-entering the atmosphere at high altitude whereas the witnesses with the clearest view of the object at Rogue River (those using binoculars) put the distance at about 1 mile.
Another thing that strikes me as odd. There seems to be some confusion about whether the Zond IV itself was sighted or its rocket booster. A rocket booster falling back to earth might easily have been described as “fuselage” like… “cigar shaped”and so on…and thus even descriptions such as these (which we have not subtracted) might actually have been accurate… and if we subtract THOSE descriptions… we are left with VERY FEW inaccurate descriptions indeed - and certainly, not a significant number.
So when we accurately examine the supposed “inaccuracies” in the witness testimony, it turns out that very few witnesses indeed described the event inaccurately. It turns out the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported the Zond IV “event” actually reported it quite accurately. And THIS is a conclusion opposite to what is contended by Hartmann and Astrophotographer.
More, Hartmann seems to have fudged the figures. Was it 30 or 17 reports examined in Table 2. There was the issue of double counting the “rocket” shape “inaccuracy. Then there is the matter of Hartmann counting descriptions as “inaccurate” when the possibly WERE accurate. Hartmann himself concedes that the “inaccurate descriptions he cites were “Conceptions that are to greater or lesser degree erroneous.” To a “greater of LESSER degree”? I ask you…
So no, Rogue River and the Zond IV event are not comparable in event characteristics at all. Perhaps the conclusion from each is comparable… that the eyewitnesses were accurate to a large degree and the inaccuracies that were made seem to revolve primarily about distance estimates… but the shape was described mostly accurately. Neither case is better than the other. The Zond IV is certainly an “exotic” craft but it was identified by the majority for what it was. The Rogue River object is not exotic – it is merely unidentified…
Does that answer your questions Astrophotographer?
