Reply to Wollery on White Sands
Hi Wollery.
I have considered your extensive post
(…snipped because it was a large post which you can read yourself via this link…)
And I am now ready to make a reply.
The first point to make is that you are deceptively confusing the results of Dr. Maccabee’s calculations with those of the analysts. Dr. Maccabbee made the calculations he did to make a point that it was possible for the analysts to achieve the reported figures they did (a point I will return to below). However the substantial point to make here is that
his calculations in
no way reflect on the reliability of the analyst’s calculations.
Second, you are broadly correct in saying that we cannot evaluate precisely how accurate the White Sands mathematician’s calculations were - based on the available evidence. However, I will also make some comments about that point below.
Considering your calculations then; the fact that you calculated angular size to four place accuracy shows that you are being too exacting - considering the data that went into the calculation (for example I saw an ad on TV the other day for a face-cream claiming to “reduce the appearance of wrinkles by 62.14%”(!) - this is what I mean by reporting accuracy beyond what the raw data is capable of producing). Perhaps then you are exaggerating the accuracy merely to show Dr, Maccabee is “wrong”. For example, Dr. Maccabee wrote that the resolution angle was about 3 seconds of arc while you "emphatically" point out that it is "actually" 3.4377 arc seconds. Dr Maccabee wrote that 3 seconds of arc corresponds to about 2 1/2 ft at 150000 ft. You “correct” that to 2.8975 ft. Whereas Dr. Maccabee’s approximate ("ball park") type of calculation yields about (30/2.5 =) 12 resolution elements across the image, your "accurate" calculation returns 10.3537 resolution elements.
However, the
main point of doing the calculations in the first place is to show that the resolution is greater than the resolution needed to determine shape. One needs only a few resolution elements across the image in two perpendicular directions to get an idea of shape.
I admit that it was “sloppy” of Dr. Maccabee when he merely “squared” the 12 (resolution elements) to get to about 140 resolution elements over the whole image if approximating round. He should have included the pi/4 = 0.785 factor which multiplies (12^2 = 144) yielding 113. But I guess Dr Maccabee wasn't trying for great accuracy in this calculation. Instead he was simply trying to demonstrate that there were plenty of pixels for the analysts to be able to estimate the diameter of an object, if seen as a circle (almost or directly overhead), or the length of its major axis, if it appeared as an ellipse (which they could interpret as a circular object with a horizontal bottom seen from below at some slant angle). I should also point out that the resolution element size might easily have been
smaller than the 10 microns (0.001 cm) that Dr. Maccabee assumed, in which case the number of resolution elements would have been greater!
Dr Maccabee also pointed out that, since the height was given as 150,000 ft, the distance from the camera with the film
was farther away if the objects did not pass directly over it (i.e. seen at a slant angle). Since we don't know the angular elevation of the camera with film, we don't know how big the image on the film was. It was probably smaller than 10 pixels in size (diameter of a circle or major axis of an ellipse), but since we have no way of knowing, we have to rely on the men who made the measurements to be reasonably accurate in saying they were about 30 ft in diameter.
Regardless of the accuracy (or lack of accuracy) of Dr. Maccabee’s calculations, the main point of his White Sands report is that, according to the "boots on the ground," (the guys who grapple with the data) - which is "where the rubber meets the road” - there were objects, evidently unidentified (or they wouldn't have bothered to film them) travelling at some high speed at an altitude of about 150000 ft.
Let us now consider the error margins you make so much of. Suppose the triangulation accuracy was to within about 10% (a large error margin) - so that the error bounds might be on the order of 15,000 ft. This means the objects could have been at an altitude between 135000 and 165000 ft. It MUST be pointed out that
the lower altitude is still higher than anything we flew at that time!
Even the high altitude (Skyhook) balloons in those days achieved only 100,000 to 110,000 ft - at which altitude they had large diameters of about 100 ft (the maximum altitudes of Skyhook balloons increased with time. In 1956 a record was set at 144,000 ft. Presently the record altitude for an unmanned balloon is 170,000 ft. set in 1972). You would also think that if someone had launched a Skyhook balloon near the testing area the observers would have known it (after all, they wouldn't want the Shrike missile to hit a balloon!) And high altitude balloons move relatively slowly - and they have a "teardrop" shape. The objects also weren't meteors. Meteors travel too fast.
Returning to the discussion about the accuracy and reliability of the White Sands mathematician’s calculations, one may note the date on the page reporting the calculations: May 15. It appears then that the mathematical reduction unit had plenty of time to digest the data, meaning of course that it wasn't a report that was rushed out on the same or next day.
Then one can note the dates on the transmittal letter that mentions both the April 27 and May 24 events: that is May 31 and July 13 (I don't know why there are two dates), but again it appears that there was plenty of time to "argue over" the data - if they felt that such argument was necessary - or if they felt that reporting that the objects were 150,000 ft and 30 ft in diameter would make themselves look incompetent or silly.
Interestingly the cover letter states that there were two reports: Red#1 and Red#2 also submitted to Dr. Mirarchi (in response to his request for information on the April and May events). Inquiring minds want to know ...
what was in those reports!? The same minds also want to know WHERE ARE THOSE REPORTS AND FILMS?!!!
