Rramjet, everyone, and I mean everyone, has a cameraphone these days. Why are you looking at 30-year-old TV broadcasts. Get something new up here!
Soooo…
another proponent of the theory: “As evidence ages, so it becomes less valuable”. Try arguing your theory to a Holocaust victim or their families.
Since I have a pilots license the first assertion you make is obviously not true. Secondly, I did not say anything about water or if they were in- or outside the plane. You jump conclusions.
Since you “have a pilots licence” you say that water CAN form in “droplets” on the outside of a plane’s cockpit windows while flying?
The only
other interpretation of your original statement would be to suppose that condensation was forming on the
inside of the cockpit windows but that is equally implausible (especially given the weather conditions, the type of plane, the altitude, etc)!
I notice that this is your interpretation of the text. I just want to remind you that your opinion doesn't equal objective truth. And, the same goes for my opinion. A scientific report should not be open to interpretation. That's a pretty simple concept that UFOlogists fail to understand.
I am afraid you have misinterpreted what a “scientific” report is… It is often instructive to include a “history” of events recounted from an eyewitness point of view so that it may provide context and perspective to later empirical analysis. This is nothing unusual.
Moreover, let’s cite your original quote
in context shall we…
”At about 0005 (12:05 A.M., local time), the captain and copilot first noticed oddly behaving lights ahead of them near the Kaikoura Coast. They had flown this route many times before and were thoroughly familiar with the lights along the coast so they quickly realized that these were not ordinary coastal lights. These lights would appear, project a beam downward toward the sea, and then disappear, only to reappear at some other location. Sometimes there was only one, sometimes none and sometimes several…”
(
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
Sure, I'll get there. In the mean time, why don't you tell me how many radar contacts actually coincides in time and space with visual contacts. Or haven't you checked? You just assume there are many?
Since I (unlike you) have actually
read the document(s) in question, I no longer need to
assume anything.
It is however obvious what you are driving at here. You
assume that because there were a number of radar contacts for which visual identification was not confirmed, then that somehow throws into doubt those contacts where visual (AND “caught on film”) radar contacts
were confirmed. Can you please explain the scientific theory behind your assumption here – or are you in fact operating on an extended version of the “correlation equals causation” fallacy?
I'm sure that you can either summarize or point out where the author presents the arguments that rule out "clutter effects of mild atmospheric refraction" that was common in the area. I can't find it so I would be greatful.
I think that before we do that you actually need to get a handle on the history of the event so that you can understand what this document is actually referring to.
” These events occurred between about 0010 hours (12:10 A.M.) and 0100 (1:00 A.M.) local (daylight saving) time. During this time the airplane, an Argosy 4 engine freighter, flew southward from Wellington to Christchurch. The flight track of the aircraft is illustrated in Figure 4 along with the times of various events to be described. (There was a second series of events which were visually and photographically more impressive than the ones discussed here as the aircraft flew northward along the same track between about 0200 (2:00 A.M.) and 0300 hours. Two of those events have been discussed in depth (see Maccabee, 1979, 1980 and 1987)).”
(
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
So, the events discussed in this “Radar” document primarily relate to the “first” series of sightings. There was a “more impressive” series of sightings that occurred as the plane flew the return leg, northbound.
It must be noted that on the return leg, over a four minute period, according to Dr Maccebee (1979), “The object was observed by four witnesses as well as the cameraman, and it was detected continuously by the airplane radar during a portion of the time it was seen visually.”
It was this “second” run that produced the film that was seen around the world (and that I have referenced). Unfortunately, Christchurch radar did not pick up
this object, so the ground radar analysis conducted by Dr Maccabee was necessarily restricted to the targets detected on the “first” run southbound. It was noted by Dr Maccebee (1979) that (given the capabilities of Christchurch radar) the “second” run target must have been “…a weak reflector of 50-cm waves or below about 1 km in altitude (or both)”.
Now, that being cleared up we can discuss the targets on the “first” run (as outlined in the document (
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc).
”It has been necessary to present history of these events in order to establish the context for the following question: are there logically acceptable explanations in terms of conventional phenomena for the unidentified radar targets and visual sightings? For some, but not all, of the events involving only the radar targets the answer ranges from perhaps to yes. For the visual events, however, the answer appears to be a firm no. As pointed out above, the film of the three appearances of a blue-white light, regardless of exactly where the plane was when it was filmed, is a completely unexplainable because there was just no source for such a light. This is not a question of poor recollection on the part of witnesses or failing to identify coastal lights or other normal lights in the area. Similarly, the visual sightings of lights with beams going downward that appeared and disappeared above Kaikoura (or in the direction toward Kaikoura but closer to the airplane) are unexplained. The sighting of a small light ahead of the aircraft at 0016 is unexplained because there was simply no light to be seen in that direction. The sighting of a flashing light ahead at 0027 (which is likely to have been the light that was filmed) is unexplained, again because there was no light in that direction. And last, but certainly not least, the sighting of a flashing light at the right side for a couple of minutes starting at about 0030:45 is unexplained because there simply was no light like that to be seen along the distant coastline or in the vicinity of the plane.”
(…)
”All of the discussion about radar targets to this point has not tackled a fundamental question which is, what is the significance of transient targets that appeared near the aircraft? A related question is, what was reflecting the radiation, since the presence of any target return on the radar screen means that something has reflected the radiation? The trivial answer, that some unknown airplane was being detected, is not relevant here. During these sightings there was only one known aircraft in the sky.”
(…)
”One may conclude from the discussion thus far that the radar targets detected near the coast could be explained as the effects of normal atmospheric refraction causing the radar to illuminate ground targets in a random manner. However, this not a convincing explanation for all the targets that were observed near the airplane. And none of these is a satisfactory explanation for the Double Sized Target. ”
You asserted:
” I would also like to point out that the film crew was onboard just because there had been UFO reports some days earlier. Because of that it is more than usually likely that any events would be interpreted in a UFO context and not with a clear, analytical mind. Selective perception and confirmation bias is something one should be aware of imo.’
To which I replied:
” Well, of course, the film camera also went into this whole thing with a preconceived notion of what it should be filming too! (as did the ground radar…
.
Besides, precisely how does ”selective perception and confirmation bias” come into the viewing of unidentified, oddly behaving lights? You will need to explain this (these) unfounded, generalised assertion(s). Unless you can explain your use of the terms as they apply to the actual sighting, you are merely grasping at straws here I am afraid.
I CAN however see how confirmation bias might have come into the decision to release the footage almost immediately on broadcast TV as “UFOs” without film (or any other scientific) analysis - but the actual viewing of unidentified “lights in the sky” …?”
I am obviously talking about the interpretation of what was seen and filmed during this flight. You deliberately try to misunderstand simply because you can't come up with any counter arguments. Cowardly debating tactics. You never present any critical analysis of your own but only keep referring to different documents you find on the web. Documents that anyone can cast doubt on which you refuse to see.
Perhaps you might care to explain how my reply to your initial unfounded assertions might be considered “cowardly”…? No? I thought not…
Then… IF you are “talking about the interpretation of what was seen and filmed during this flight”, you will of course be able to explain how YOUR claim of ”selective perception and confirmation bias” operated and what the result was.
As for critical analysis…I already TOLD you how I saw “confirmation bias” fitting into the event… and that my analysis in that direction does not accord with your unfounded assertions. YOU need to explain HOW the assertions you made actually apply, otherwise they remain
unfounded.
Exactly because it's assumed from the beginning to be no mundane things. Happy now?
Point to anywhere in the extensive documentation of this case where the eyewitnesses “interpreted” the objects as
anything other than “lights” or “unidentified objects”. It was only AFTER, that the perhaps (at the time) premature “UFO” (with its attendant ramifications) tag was attached. Moreover, are you suggesting that they go into the potential sighting with a bias in the direction of “It MUST be mundane”? THAT is not “scientific”… they went into the event wanting to see if there was any veracity in the accounts of “UFOs” being seen in the area…they wanted to see (if it were true) if they could capture any potential UFOs on film. Exactly HOW is such an attitude “biased”?
Your original questions were:
”How many radar echos were seen?
How many lights were seen?
How many of those coincided in time and space?
How many did not coincide in time and space?”
To which I replied:
All the information required to satisfactorily answer those questions is contained within the document YOU claimed you were reading above... you have just shown me that you have NOT read the document at all! Another confirmation of the (by now) UFO debunker truism "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up".
Ok, so you can't answer because you haven't thought of this before? Go figure. Ok, I'll do the counting then. I found 3 that seems to coincide.
Gonna take me a lil bit longer to count the ones that didn't coincide because they are plenty!
Let’s just briefly recap the history of the southbound leg:
0005 “oddly behaving lights … These lights would appear, project a beam downward toward the sea, and then disappear, only to reappear at some other location. Sometimes there was only one, sometimes none and sometimes several” (unknown if ground radar had them specifically as this was before pilot’s first contact with ground radar)
0012 Pilots first contact Wellington ground radar (WATCC). Controller stated that he “had noticed targets appearing and disappearing in that direction for half an hour or more.” Pilot asks WATCC “If you've got a chance would you keep an eye on them?" "Certainly," was the reply.
0015 WATCC reports target “at 3:00 position”. No visual.
0016 WATCC reports "Target briefly appeared 12:00 to you at 10 miles." Visual confirmed.
0016:30 WATCC reports a "...strong target showing at 11:00 at 3 miles." No visual.
0017:18 WATCC reports “target "just left of 9:00 at 2 miles." No visual.
0019 WATCC reported at target at 10:00 at 12 miles. No visual. However:
” The captain has written (7) that he got the impression from this series of targets that some object that was initially ahead of his plane had traveled past the left side. He decided to make an orbit (360 degree turn) to find out if they could see anything at their left side or behind.”[/IINDENT]
0020:30 WATCC reports “"there is another target that just appeared on your left side about 1 mile....briefly and then disappearing again." No visual but “the air crew was still seeing anomalous lights near the coast.”
(about) 0023: (as the plane completes its 360 orbit) WATCC reports "The target I mentioned a moment ago is still just about 5:00 to you, stationary." No visual but they could still “see the anomalous lights near Kaikoura.”
It is interesting to note that during this period the WATCC appears to confirm these lights near Kaikoura as definite radar targets, however:
”WATCC controller noticed targets continuing to appear, remain for one or two sweeps of the radar, and then disappear close to the Kaikoura Coast. However, he did not report these to the airplane. He reported only the targets which were appearing near the airplane, now about 25 miles off the coast. The TV reporter, who was able to watch the skies continually, has stated (8) that he continually saw anomalous lights "over Kaikoura," that is, they appeared to be higher than the lights along the coastline at the town of Kaikoura.”
00:27 WATCC reports "Target is at 12:00 at 3 miles." The captain responded immediately, "Thank you. We pick it up. It's got a flashing light." The captain reported seeing "a couple of very bright blue-white lights, flashing regularly at a rapid rate…”
It is probable that the cameraman captured this light on film as the film of the event shows a light matching the description supplied by the witnesses, however as Dr Maccebee notes:
“Unfortunately the camera was not synchronized with either the WATCC tape recorder or the tape recorder on the plane so the times of the film images must be inferred by matching the verbal descriptions with the film images.
(…)
The probability is high, although one cannot absolutely certain, that the air crew, the reporter and cameraman all saw and recorded on tape and film the appearance of the light at 3 miles in front of the aircraft. If true, then this might have been a radar/visual/photographic sighting. (A radar/visual/photographic sighting did occur about an hour later as the airplane flew northward from Christchurch.)”
(about) 0029 “WATCC reported a target 1 mile behind the plane.”
(about) 0031 WATCC “reported a target about 4 miles behind the airplane.”
(target then disappears from radar but at about)
0031:30 WATCC “reported a target at 3:00 at 4 miles.”
Then:
“Two sweeps of the radar beam later he saw something really surprising. He reported, "There's a strong target right in formation with you. Could be right or left. Your target has doubled in size… The extraordinary condition of a "double size target" (DST) persisted for at least 36 seconds. "
“The cameraman told the reporter about the target flying in formation and the reporter started looking through the right side window for the target. The copilot was also looking and after some seconds he spotted a light which he described as follows: "It was like the fixed navigation lights on a small airplane when one passes you at night. It was much smaller than the really big ones we had seen over Kaikoura. At irregular intervals it appeared to flash, but it didn't flash on and off; it brightened or perhaps twinkled around the edges. When it did this I could see color, a slight tinge of green or perhaps red. It's very difficult describing a small light you see at night.
(…)
During this time the reporter also saw the light and recorded his impression: "I'm looking over towards the right of the aircraft and we have an object confirmed by Wellington radar. It's been following us for quite a while. It's about 4 miles away and it looks like a very faint star, but then it emits a bright white and green light." Unfortunately the light was too far to the right for the cameraman to be able to film it (he would have had to sit in the copilot's seat to do that). The captain was able to briefly see this light which the copilot had spotted. This event was a radar-visual sighting with several witnesses to the light.
About 82 seconds after Wellington reported that the DST had reduced to normal size, when the plane was approximately at point 17, the captain told WATCC, "Got a target at 3:00 just behind us," to which WATCC responded immediately, "Roger, and going around to 4:00 at 4 miles." This would appear to be a radar confirmation of the light that the crew saw at the right side."
0035 WATCC reports "The target you mentioned, the last one we mentioned, make it 5:00 at 4 miles previously, did you see anything?" The captain responded, "We saw that one. It came up at 4:00, I think, around 4 miles away, " to which WATCC responded, "Roger, that target is still stationary. It's now 6:00 to you at about 15 miles and it's been joined by two other targets."
“Then the WATCC reported that the three targets had been replaced by a single target. The captain, wondering about all this activity at his rear, requested a second two minute orbit. This was carried out at about 0036:30 (point 19). Nothing was seen and the single target disappeared. From then on the plane went straight into Christchurch. The Christchurch controller did report to the aircraft that his radar showed a target over land, west of the aircraft, that seemed to pace the aircraft but turned westward and traveled inland as the aircraft landed. The copilot looked to the right and saw a small light moving rapidly along with the aircraft. However, copilot duties during the landing itself prevented him from watching it continually and he lost sight of it just before the aircraft landed.”
Sooo… now we have the types of contact that were made and the context in which they were made, let’s look at your questions again:
How many radar echos were seen?
How many lights were seen?
How many of those coincided in time and space?
How many did not coincide in time and space?
Obviously there were numerous radar echoes. First there were the anomalous lights near Kaikoura, seen by the pilots and reporters, etc (at some distance from the plane) and these seemed to be confirmed by WATCC (but not directly reported to the plane).
Then there was the unidentified object nearer to the plane (within 4 or so miles). These were sometimes visible and at other times not. The descriptions of the lights when visible and confirmed by radar showed that they were blinking off and on – so even though there may have been a radar target, the crew might not necessarily have seen an object even if the object was exactly where the WATCC said it was (remembering this was occurring at night…).
It must be noted that the WATCC noted (reported) only ONE object (radar target) near the plane.
Summarising the answer to your first question then, we have numerous targets near the coast and these were visually confirmed from the plane. We also have one target near the plane, but this was only intermittently confirmed by visual from the plane.
The above then would also appear to answer your second question.
Now we must tackle your third and fourth questions. These are not so easy to directly answer. Indeed, it hardly makes sense to even TRY to quantify the sighting in this way.
It is obvious that WATCC did not report targets on every single sweep of the radar – although it is equally obvious that the target(s) must have been visible on the screen through successive sweeps. It seems that the WATCC only reported substantial events… like a large position change or the reappearance of the object after a disappearance. At each report we usually have some indication of whether there was a visual identification from the airplane also. Thus to quantify the event as you attempt to do is merely to allow one variable - the number of times the WATCC
chose to report to the plane - to dictate the numerical outcome. Thus your third and fourth questions will not supply any answer that might represent a valid assessment of the sighting.
