RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Everyone already agrees it's a UFO. The question you quoted from me asked "How does that make it alien?" You didn't answer that question. Not sure what you mean by not benign.
- Status
Everyone already agrees it's a UFO. The question you quoted from me asked "How does that make it alien?" You didn't answer that question. Not sure what you mean by not benign.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
The use of the term 'inordinate' by a USAF officer ruled out the possibility of an aircraft. If the object had exhibited aircraft type characteristics, then I think we should have seen 'an aircraft with extraordinary flight characteristics' quoted in the report, as opposed to UFO.
Air Force Officers are not about to alert everyone from the White House on down if the object was an aircraft. They have some personal credibility to maintain. If it's an aircraft, I am sure his Air Force superiors would have been notified, but not the Secretary of Defense, nor the myriad of General officers otherwise notified from all branches of the service.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
are you still talking about the Iranian 1976 ufo incident here ?
Last edited:
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
By 'not benign' I meant that emanations from the object affected avionics of three aircraft, including a commercial airliner.
So, we have a UFO emanating some sort of energy, surmised as electromagnetic or pulsed magnetic, exhibiting speed, aerobatic, and aerodynamic characteristics not recognizable as 'ordinary'.
SO what is left? ANY type of terrestrial explanation?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
No. You're applying the same argument from ignorance and incredulity that Rramjet relies on to support his position. The fact that you don't know what he meant by "inordinate" doesn't mean you get to shove any old definition you like in there to support your preconceived belief. The fact that you can't believe something described as flying in an inordinate manner could possibly be anything but an alien craft doesn't support in any way the legitimate possibility.
Again, you're trying to support your belief based on your incredulity. Maybe you can't fathom that the guy would alert everyone from the White House on down unless it was an alien craft, but that only goes to what you believe and not to the truth of the situation. You should duck out and let Rramjet play that ignorant incredulous game alone. No sense in the both of you looking foolish.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
I am. But not 'still'.
I've just taken the time to review all the documentation and finally able to reply with decent working knowledge of the information.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
So what explanation do you offer, SnidelyW, and aside from your incredulity, what evidence do you have to support it?
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
And if you look at EHockings post (the one you apparently ignored on the previous page!), you will see that your positioning is wrong as well. They were looking towards the North East and followed the
On the contrary, I'm glad you did check... It was late last night here when I did that. I had two alternative positions depending upon which information I used. I admit I may have got the wrong one of the two most likely positions I had pinned (because of the mention of Elephant Rock and a Highway bridge, which actually puts the boat a further 3 or 4 miles up the river). However, if that is wrong, it's fine, because even at the position you have indicated (which I admit does fit with the majority of the witness statements), there are still hills to the East of their position and you would not be able to see the
But as we don't really know how big it was or how far away it was or what altitude it was, none of this is going to be conclusive anyhow. What IS conclusice, is that from the position you have indicated, looking the direction indicted by the witness statements, they would not have been able to see the
PS: They didn't specifically mention how it went out of view either:
Mr B Signed Statement: The object was in sight for approximately one (1) minute.
Mr C Signed Statement: it picked up speed and when it vanished from sight approximately 90 seconds later
Mr D Signed Statement: which was visible to the naked eye for approximately two minutes
Mrs D Signed Statement: No sound was heard and it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutes
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
No. You're applying the same argument from ignorance and incredulity that Rramjet relies on to support his position. The fact that you don't know what he meant by "inordinate" doesn't mean you get to shove any old definition you like in there to support your preconceived belief. The fact that you can't believe something described as flying in an inordinate manner could possibly be anything but an alien craft doesn't support in any way the legitimate possibility.
Again, you're trying to support your belief based on your incredulity. Maybe you can't fathom that the guy would alert everyone from the White House on down unless it was an alien craft, but that only goes to what you believe and not to the truth of the situation. You should duck out and let Rramjet play that ignorant incredulous game alone. No sense in the both of you looking foolish.
If you have ever been in a position of reponsibility, especially concerning reportable issues, let me assure you that one is not about to put ones career into the frying pan unless you posess very convincing evidence to back up the reportable assertion.
It seems your modus operandi is to toss out non sequiturs and names, and I'm not biting into that bait.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
you need to look at it from the Iranian perspective, they were describing something in comparison to what they were used to, what they were used to was F4's
which has no ECM capability
compare to this
wouldn't you describe the latter as "not recognizable as 'ordinary'.", to the Iranians in 1976, especially if the latter had built in electronic counter measures ?
now of course that second set of statistics is just imaginary and didn't exist at the time, but imagine if it was a USAF secret aircraft, do the comments made by a USAF officer suddenly make a lot more sense
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
That's odd. I don't remember reading that.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
thats because you didn't, its just another straw man from the aliens supporters club
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
So far the entire base of your argument is in the form of, "I don't believe it could have been something mundane, therefore it must have been something exotic." That's a logical fallacy, an argument from incredulity. And where I certainly don't expect Rramjet to understand that, I do hold out some hope that you can.
My modus operandi is simply to point out where you and Rramjet are arguing from ignorance, incredulity, and in his case, lying. Sure it might seem like you're being picked on, but Jesus H. Christ, SnidelyW, if you don't like it, knock off the arguments from incredulity and put some real evidence on the table, eh? And if you don't have any actual evidence to support your preconceived notions, take a different tack from Rramjet please, and have the honesty and maturity to admit it. (Or maybe take a long hard look at your preconceived notions and consider that if you can't support them with evidence, maybe, just maybe you shouldn't be so inclined to buy into them.)
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What explanation do you give it?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Lat/Long of Elephant rock (upstream from the bridge) is, 42:26:51N (42.44761), 124:22:46W (-124.37955).
Eyewitness statement said it was 700 yards NE of the boat, so they are downstream 700yards from it.
ETA: Here's the location in Google Maps.
Last edited:
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
I second this question. Got an answer, Rramjet or SnidelyW?
Last edited:
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
That's a lot clearer then... I've no idea why when I did a search for Elephant Rock it showed a spot about 4 or 5 miles further up the river (coincidentally about 1 and a half miles above the NEXT bridge that crosses the river).
Oooops, my mistake, noted and corrected. Thanks
Edit: The last Google Earth screen grab was using the same position as Rramjet had used. Which seems to be somewhere near correct (though pointing in the wrong direction).
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Took you long enough.
White Sands - Reply to Jocce
You have made an excellent abstract of the White Sands article Jocce (ie; here:
I like this format.
Unfortunately, you missed the key point of the whole article.
In the results section of your analysis you wrote:
This is wrong. You have mixed up April 27 with May 24. During May 24 they saw many objects and "expended " lots of film but didn't get a triangulation because the various cameras were (apparently) following different objects. However, the April 27 sighting did result in a triangulation:
From the cover letter (of containing a summary of the Data Reduction Report - that was sent to Lt. John Albert – and was thus probably written by him):
(from the second page of the letter containing a summary of the Data Reduction report)
You may not realize it, but azimuth and elevation angles from one location combined with an azimuth angle from another location are sufficient to accomplish a triangulation.
To understand this, imagine that the azimuth angles from two locations are measured. Of course the baseline azimuth between cameras and the distance between cameras is known. From each camera location, as plotted on a map, imagine extending a line along the measured azimuth direction. The lines from the two cameras meet at a ground-level intersection point. This point is directly below the objects. Now imagine extending a line upward from the intersection point. One of the cameras also has measured the elevation angle from its location. Imagine drawing a "slanted" line upward from that camera location. Eventually the slanted line from that camera location will intersect the vertical line from the ground-level intersection point thereby forming a right triangle. The altitude of this upper intersection point is the altitude of the objects. Of course, the "mathematical reduction unit" knew this calculation was possible, conducted it, and reported the results of the triangulation (30 ft diameter, 150,000 ft, etc.)
You also question why Dr. Maccabee’s article questions the establishment of a lookout post at Vaughn, NM.
Actually in Dr. Maccabee's White Sands article there is a brief discussion of the Vaughn lookout post:
The complete Twinkle report is at (http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
Lt.C. Doyle Rees is mentioned in the article. Info about him can be found at
(http://www.project1947.com/shg/sohp/reesintro.html)
Finally, IXP quotes the documents - but failed to notice that the date on the page that reports the triangulation is April 27.
He then writes:
Of course the triangulation on April 27 is the important result here - and that suggests there was very GOOD information gained. That is, the White Sands sightings and the information together constitute a scientific PROOF.
You have made an excellent abstract of the White Sands article Jocce (ie; here:
I like this format.
Unfortunately, you missed the key point of the whole article.
In the results section of your analysis you wrote:
This is wrong. You have mixed up April 27 with May 24. During May 24 they saw many objects and "expended " lots of film but didn't get a triangulation because the various cameras were (apparently) following different objects. However, the April 27 sighting did result in a triangulation:
From the cover letter (of containing a summary of the Data Reduction Report - that was sent to Lt. John Albert – and was thus probably written by him):
“3. The Holloman AF Base Data Reduction Unit analyzed the 27 April pictures and made a report, a copy of which I am enclosing with the film for your information. It was believed that triangulation could be effected from pictures taken on 24 May because pictures were taken from two stations. The films were rapidly processed and examined by Data Reduction. However, it was determined that sightings were made on two different objects and triangulation could not be effected. A report from Data Reduction and the films from the sighting are enclosed.”
(from the second page of the letter containing a summary of the Data Reduction report)
“Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950"
(…)
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.”
(…)
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.”
You may not realize it, but azimuth and elevation angles from one location combined with an azimuth angle from another location are sufficient to accomplish a triangulation.
To understand this, imagine that the azimuth angles from two locations are measured. Of course the baseline azimuth between cameras and the distance between cameras is known. From each camera location, as plotted on a map, imagine extending a line along the measured azimuth direction. The lines from the two cameras meet at a ground-level intersection point. This point is directly below the objects. Now imagine extending a line upward from the intersection point. One of the cameras also has measured the elevation angle from its location. Imagine drawing a "slanted" line upward from that camera location. Eventually the slanted line from that camera location will intersect the vertical line from the ground-level intersection point thereby forming a right triangle. The altitude of this upper intersection point is the altitude of the objects. Of course, the "mathematical reduction unit" knew this calculation was possible, conducted it, and reported the results of the triangulation (30 ft diameter, 150,000 ft, etc.)
You also question why Dr. Maccabee’s article questions the establishment of a lookout post at Vaughn, NM.
Actually in Dr. Maccabee's White Sands article there is a brief discussion of the Vaughn lookout post:
“According to Dr. Elterman, before Twinkle began there had been “an abnormal number of reports” from Vaughn, New Mexico, so it was decided to place a lookout post there. Why this place was chosen is a mystery to me. It is about 120 air miles from Los Alamos, about 90 from Sandia Base and nearly 150 from Alamogordo/Holloman AFB. I have listed above the sighting statistics for the various New Mexico areas, being careful to list the sightings around Vaughn separately. Note that Vaughn had only 1 sighting in the whole previous year. So why did they “waste” a lookout post at Vaughn? Why didn’t they put one at Los Alamos or at White Sands?”
The complete Twinkle report is at (http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
Lt.C. Doyle Rees is mentioned in the article. Info about him can be found at
(http://www.project1947.com/shg/sohp/reesintro.html)
Finally, IXP quotes the documents - but failed to notice that the date on the page that reports the triangulation is April 27.
He then writes:
Of course the triangulation on April 27 is the important result here - and that suggests there was very GOOD information gained. That is, the White Sands sightings and the information together constitute a scientific PROOF.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Of aliens?
- Status