Thanx for seeing that. I put the wrong date. That's what happens when you're going too fast.
It happens.
I stated:
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.
Oh, but I do realize that. However, I can also think of a reason why the project director decided that it wasn't good enough. By that I mean another reason than a conspiracy theory. Can you?
Of course… but can you? Here’s a clue:
“Enter Dr. Louis Elterman, a well known atmospheric physicist. Elterman was known for using powerful searchlights to study the upper atmosphere (density, dust loading, etc.). He also wrote a report on ball lightning for Project Grudge, the second Air Force project to collect and analyze flying saucer sightings, so he obviously knew the official opinion of the Air Force on flying saucers, namely that there weren't/aren't any. (The Project Grudge personnel did not look favorably on saucer reports.)” (
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm).
I stated:
You also question why Dr. Maccabee’s article questions the establishment of a lookout post at Vaughn, NM.
Yeah well, the author hasn't mentioned it before in the text where he is only talking about Holloman. I couldn't see why he suddenly was talking about Vaughn. It's a lot clearer after going to the source documents. In the future, it would be helpful if you provide them at the start rather than retellings/summaries.
Sorry… I did not have them myself when I originally posted the case.
I stated:
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.
The project director disagrees with you. I think you can figure out why.
Of course… but can you? Hint: see below.
I stated:
Ugh... The observers and analysts were highly qualified and trained in the jobs that they did. In other words they had precisely the expertise needed to conduct the observations and analysis and report the results as they did.
Ugh... The project director was highly qualified and trained in the job he did. In other words he had precisely the expertise needed to evaluate the results and report his conclusions.
In his report (
http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm) he stated:
2. Contractual period - 1 April 1950 to 15 September 1950.
Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no information was gained. On 30 August 1950, during a Bell aircraft missile launching, aerial phenomena were observed over Holloman Air Force Base by several individuals; however, neither Land-Air nor Project personnel were notified and, therefore, no results were acquired. On 31 August 1950, the phenomena were again observed after a V-2 launching. Although much film was expended, proper triangulation was not effected, so that again no information was acquired.
Now in these assessments WE KNOW he is just plain wrong (or did he cover up the evidence?). How can we trust his conclusions when he is either ignoring or covering up the evidence (that we all know exists!) as presented by the observers and the analysts?
I stated:
30ft diameter "craft" being spotted and filmed cruising around at high speed at 150,000 feet?
Who is jumping conclusions?
Notice the quotation marks? They indicate that a descriptor has been applied that is my own hypothetical interpretation of what they were. Why, what do YOU think the objects were?
ETA: I would also like to add that during this whole project (1 year), only partial data was aquired at only ONE occasion. Just wanted to point that out since it sounds like it was a lot more dramatic when reading your posts.
Oh no, you are incorrect, Many observations were made, many objects were filmed, however satisfactory triangulation was achieved only one occasion, 27th April.
I stated:
All along you (and others) have been asking..."Where is the hard evidence?" "Where are the verified instrumented sightings?" And when I show it to you, all you can come up with is the ultimate resort of the debunker "It could have been anything"?
What? Is this hard evidence of aliens? Huh? I'm mystified.
Aliens? I have NEVER claimed this was hard evidence for aliens… Just think for a moment what you have been saying to me about the Rogue River case (and other cases)… Your PRIMARY contention is that the witnesses were mistaken in their observations. Now I present a case where the witnesses were NOT mistaken, and had the film and triangulation data to prove it. This sighting represents proof of UFOs, not aliens.
How is this case suggestive of an "intelligent agency"?
Well, no natural explanation could be found. The objects were 150,000 feet up! They had a clearly defined, size and as Dr. Maccabee states in his report “…something was there, obviously large, fast and unusual or the camera crews wouldn’t have bothered to film it! If it wasn’t “natural” and it wasn’t “us”, then what do YOU make of it…dies it “suggest” anything to you?
I stated:
Ummm… sure… then what IS that natural phenomenon…? That is, point to ANY natural phenomenon that plausibly COULD explain the White sands objects.
No, Roger. I'm not going to play that game. I'm not going to say "it could have been this" only to have you say "Blaatghhgl! It wasn't!".
Oh, so you concede “UFO” then? What happened to your “natural” contention?
I stated:
Ummm… no, I have NEVER claimed “only” an alien could have done it. This is your strawman argument back to haunt us again…
What is this “ORLY” you speak of?
You are saying here that no natural explanation is satisfying. And from my experience in banging my head against your brick wall, I think I can safely say that no natural explanation will ever be satisfying, because you've already concluded what you want to conclude, and that is that no natural explanation will ever be satisfying.
I'm done here. Again.
If you present a plausible natural explanation - then I will of course consider the evidence. But as you CANNOT do so, then what is your point? Just because you say something, does not make it true. Just because you SAY that there is a natural explanation, does not make it true.
Here's another report on the april 27 and may 24 photosessions:
On two occasions objects were photographed with Askania theodolites, once on 27 April 1950 and again on 29 May 1950. The results were not satisfactory, however, and no data could be obtained because in the first instance only one station was tracking and in the second instance two stations tracked two different objects.
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page....NARA-PBB85-612
But we KNOW this to be an erroneous assessment! We have the report!
Also why don't you acknowledge the existence of the unknown mundane?
I do. But I do NOT use unknown phenomena to explain unknown phenomena. To do so is irrational (at best!).
Well, measuring distance by triangulation is something I happen to know a hell of a lot about. And there are a few things in this report that trouble me greatly.
Quote:
1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
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
First off they say the altitude and diameter are approximate, but they don't give an error. That smells extremely fishy to me.
No, it would be fishy if they pretended to an EXACT figure. “Approximately” is admitting to a margin of error.
The reason it sounds fishy is that there are a large number of possible sources of error.
1. How, given that these phenomena were unidentified and according to the reports identical, could they be sure that they were observing the same one?
What? Obviously they knew because for May 24 sighting they realised in that case they were NOT viewing the same object(s). Remember, these are highly skilled people doing exactly what they were trained to do – to make exactly the type of observations they did.
I'll assume for now that they were observing the same object, I'll trust them that far, particularly as they threw out data on the other run where they weren't sure.
“Threw out data on the run”? Now you are just making things up. A typical “debunker” trick of casting aspersions when there is absolutely NO evidence to support the contention.
2. The calculations he does to find the resolution of the camera are inaccurate, it's more like 3.5 arcseconds, which corresponds to a diameter of 9 pixels, not 12, giving a total pixel value for the image of about 65. Even if we take his 12 pixel diameter, that only gives about 115 pixels for the whole image, not the 140 he claims.
3. His estimate of the image size being 12 pixels diameter is based on the object being 150,000 ft away, but that would only be the case if it were directly above one of the observing stations, something that is extremely unlikely, particularly as the report states that the object was "between the base and Tularosa Peak". This reduces the pixel number for the observation, probably down to less than about 50. It is of course impossible to know, because we have no details of this other than the conclusions, which lack an error estimate.
4. Let's assume for a moment that the objects were directly above one of the observing stations. This means that the other observing station which contributed an azimuth angle was at least 90 miles away, so the only reliable size data would have come from a single station.
Items 2 to 4 talk about the same thing, “inaccurate” camera resolution calculations and yet you conclude:
“It is of course impossible to know, because we have no details of this other than the conclusions, which lack an error estimate.” I thought you stated that
“measuring distance by triangulation is something I happen to know a hell of a lot about.” !!! So what was all that blather about then in “points” 1 to 4? MERE speculation NOT based on ANY data! (shrugs and shakes head in disbelief)
Moreover, It is disingenuous to “pretend” to make separate points in an effort to fool your readers into thinking you have more points that you actually do!
5. Although we are told where the object was located, we aren't told which observation posts made the relevant observations, they are only identified in the document as P10 and M7, designations which appear nowhere else. So we have no way of knowing the distance between the observation post and the objects they were observing.
So what… are you really contending they did not know the distance between their camera positions? You really ARE grasping at straws… even when there is no evidence a straw is actually there for you to grasp!
6. Filming an unknown object is not the same as filming a rocket. You know what time the rocket launched at, so it's possible to independently synchronise the images. This isn't possible with an unidentified object, so there are possible errors in the timing, which would lead to errors in the altitude estimate.
This is just utter nonsense. Again I repeat: I thought you stated “measuring distance by triangulation is something I happen to know a hell of a lot about.” …and yet now you are telling us that you don’t know how to synchronise cameras at different locations without a rocket being launched? Pure bunk. Pure unadulterated “woo”.
You take your readers for fools Wollery, and I assure you, they are not.
