UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

I thought I'd finished with this, but apparently not.

 

[wollery]

And still Rramjet completely refuses to even acknowledge that my questions about Freidman's arguments exist.

Why is that Rramjet?

I'm afraid that real life has rather impinged on my ability to post over the last week and a half, so I apologise for dragging up something that many of you might have thought was long buried. But not to Rramjet. No, Rramjet, I'm not apologising to you, because I have yet to get a coherent, reasoned response from you about my criticisms of Freidman's "arguments" against SETI.

Your last attempt to deflect the question of the energy required for interstellar flight was an appeal to the theoretical constructs commonly known as wormholes, which I pointed out require far more energy than conventional rockets use to accelerate for 1 year at 1g.

But that question has been answered, so I'll repost the other questions that you have completely failed to answer;

Do you know how narrow the TV and radio signals we use are? Do you know why we use them like that?

Can a radio station tell who has received their Radio broadcast?

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look because we haven't seen any evidence so far?

Do you know how searches for extra-solar planets might identify signs of life? More importantly, how would they identify signs of intelligent life?

Before our leaders can deal with aliens our leaders need to know that the aliens are there. Who's going to find these aliens and open the channels of communication?

Do you think that a belief that UFOs are alien craft is incompatible with support for SETI?

It's a reasonable question to ask. If they should already be here then where are they? Have they made direct contact yet?

You claim to be a scientist, and to understand the scientific process. So, in your own words, please explain what's wrong with the SETI project from a scientific perspective.

Original posts here, here, and here.

And as a simple reminder, you introduced Freidman's website and asked us to discuss it. I did, and you avoided the discussion.

After all your recent criticisms of other posters' behaviour it would be extremely hypocritical of you to continue doing so, don't you think?

 

[Rramjet]

Sorry Rramjet, you haven't conclusively shown how anyone can accurately measure by eye a light source against a black sky and black sea to be able to tell how far away it was to be able to confirm it was the same blip that was on the radar.

Until you can do this, you can not say that there was any radar visual tie up.

On the northern leg, in this case the target was on radar continually for minutes and they could track it relative to the airplane. True, they couldn't tell by eye how far away it was, but the directions correlated over a long period of time (minutes), which is quite strong evidence.

Of course what Maccabee fails to point out is that although a 100watt bulb is adequate for the minimum requirements, the regulations do not list a requirement of a 100watt bulb... they list a minimum requirement that the light be seen from a minimum distance depending upon the size of the boat. Also fishing boats are required to display a green light over a white light to warn other traffic that they are actively trawling. So once again Maccabee is only giving you the bits that fit his required result.
http://www.boatus.org/onlinecourse/r...ect/info2c.htm

Do some research of your own Rramjet instead of taking the word of someone who either does not know or does not want to you to know.

First:

“A SB does have a green running light. Regulations specify that the running light have a rating of only a hundred watts or so. A photograph a 100 watt bulb at 12 nm under the conditions of this sighting the light would make no more than a faint image on the film, if there were no other lights around. However, the glare of the white lights, totalling several hundred thousand watts of power, would completely cover up the feeble light from the green bulb. Therefore the green "dot" could not be an image of the green running light on the HSB.”​

(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)

Second, The 100 watt (or so) bulb can be seen a couple of miles when not competing with a hundred kW or more. But the bright white lights are so dazzling that only a "monster" optical system could resolve a 100 watt bulb (red or green) that would be within a few feet of a group of 10 -20 10 kW bulbs from a distance of a few miles, to say nothing of a distance of 10 miles. Crockett's camera had a 100 mm lens and was not a such a "monster" optical system.

I would also point out that squid boats are not round like the blurred blob in the photo above... that is a consequence of the picture being out of focus and most likely the reflection is blurring into the light source.

IF it WAS “blurring” then the green protrusion shown in the photo would be even LESS distinguishable than it is – especially given the above!

Cool, then you'll be able to show us the satellite picture with validating documents?... no?... didn't think so.

In Ireland's large report (referred to by Astrophotographer), Ireland mentions the satellite photo (that doesn't show a boat fishing in the Pegasus Bay at around midnight). Ireland then he suggests that a hypothetical squid boat could have "turned on" after the satellite went over! This would seem to be an extremely unlikely scenario. What was the boat DOING there all the time…just waiting for the satellite to go out of range? I don’t think so.

Then it should have been visible on the Christchurch radar but it wasn't. Klass states Maccabee says that the depression angle for the light was 5 degrees below the plane's fore-aft axis (p. 244). If I read Dr. Maccabee's Applied optics plot right, he describes depression angles of 20-40 degrees at point D. That would be well below the aircraft.

Before the plane turned 92 deg. to its right, the azimuth was estimated to be 0 deg. (during flying distance of 80+ km)! Only AFTER the turn (when the pilot attempted to fly toward the UFO and found he could not) was the azimuth between 20-40 deg.

In fact Fogarty in his book, Let's Hope They're Friendly, writes: "I remember the object out to the right moving below us and then disappearing beneath the right-hand side of the aircraft at considerable speed. I recall pressing my face hard against
the window and watching it go out of sight."(p. 41)

Christchurch is on Pegasus bay. What did the boat do? Leap over the bay?

Given that the fleet was 200km to the South East of Pegasus Bay, then any boat going to it would NOT cross the bay… it would travel along the coast. Look on the map! Such a boat would be travelling AWAY from the sighting area.

If the boat went to Pegasus bay to fish, how long do you think they would be out? It would take at least a day from Wellington to get there and I am sure two weeks would not be that long if the fishing was good. There is no evidence that this squid boat did not leave Pegasus bay.

It was not going to “fish”. It was in transit. Such boats do NOT have their “fishing” lights on.

In his second Applied Optics letter, Dr Maccabee pointed out that air crews had been flying over the area for many years (that is EVERY NIGHT on a newspaper route) but have NOT seen SBs fishing in Pegasus Bay!

I think you need to get your directions straight. Earlier you said the fleet was East (which is where it is shown on Dr. M's map) now you say West.

The fleet was 110nm South East of Christchurch. There was also a fleet to the North West of the South Island. Sorry for the confusion.

Exactly how often did the pilot change his testimony? Do you have the interviews? Do we have the actual flight path of the plane? I find it interesting that the plot used by Maccabee to refute Ireland/Andrew's plot has the line of sights all pointing to the same general location (just like Ireland's plot) as if the target were stationary until the pilot turns away from the target (sighting line E).

“…Lee also arranged for me to speak by phone with the pilot, the cameraman and the air traffic controller. Thus began the initial investigation of the sighting which was followed by analyses that lasted many years. I investigated the sightings by traveling to New Zealand and Australia for a month in February, 1979, to interview all the witnesses, by analyzing the film, and by discussing the sightings with numerous other scientists.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)

So given the sighting occurred at the end of December, Dr Maccabee had already spoken to the pilot etc just a couple of weeks after. Then again in February, just over a month after the event

The pilot was consistent in his recollections of the event.

Not only that, but a mere FOUR DAYS later the copilot recorded his recollections of the event on tape (http://www.brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html).

The plot lines all point in the same general direction? I think you better reassess and you do provide a diagram here:

These lines tend to point towards one location as if the target were nearly stationary. If we discount the "E" sighting lines, it paints an interesting picture.

View attachment 16705

Considering the problems with figuring out azimuth values on a moving/banking plane and that we are basing most of this on the memories recalled weeks/months after the event, I think Maccabee's plot is very similar to what Ireland and Andrew provided (this assumes the E lines are erroneous or another light source seen after the bank to port).

But you have “misrepresented” the sightlines! Note for example your line from “point D” and the line from the second to next point above that. They are drawn completely in the wrong direction!

And you take all the sighting directions as “accurate” (yet still manage to misrepresent them!) to suit your own purpose – then simply IGNORE the two latter sighting directions! (or start hypothesising “other lights”!

The following passages are extremely instructive:

“(15)Four days after the sighting the copilot made a tape recording of his recollections of the sighting. He was seated on the right side of the plane. He said that after the right turn the light appeared to him to be between the plane nd Banks Peninsula, and at a lower altitude than the plane (See Figure 1). His only reservation in placing the
object at some specific location between the plane and Banks was expressed during an interview five weeks later, when he stated that, since he didn't know the distance to the object, it could actually have been been beyond (south of) Banks Peninsula. In the free-recall tape he also stated that he could see the flashing beacon (Le Bons Beacon) at the end of the peninsula, so obviously he had a reference point by which to judge sighting line direction. Referring to Figure 1, one sees that the HSB locations labelled Ireland and Andrews, Maccabee Position 1 and Maccabee Position 2 are consistent with the copilot's statement about the apparent location of the light after the right turn. However, the location Maccabee Position 3, and the locations suggested by Klass are not consistent with the copilot's statement and, therefore, must be rejected.

16) In the same free-recall tape the copilot stated that he could see the bright white light of the squid fleet on the horizon (see Figure 1), which is consistent with the expected horizon distance (about 130 nm) at the altitude of the plane, 13,000 ft (3960 m) as it flew southeastward. In comparison with the brilliant white of the squid boat lights, the copilot noted that the unknown light was noticeably more orange. Since he had both "types" of light source (squid boats and the unidentified object) in sight at the same time (although not in the same direction) it is reasonable to accept the copilot's statement that he detected a definite color difference. (Perhaps the HSB was using yellow "bug", lights?) Unfortunately the film images are sufficiently
overexposed as to make it difficult to determine the actual color of the unidentified light source. Pale yellow, pale orange, or even "golden yellow" could be consistent with the images. There does seem to be an excess of yellow, even in the brightest, most saturated images

17) After flying southeast for several minutes the plane turned to the left to head back in its original direction (see Figure 1). In the free-recall tape mentioned above the copilot stated that the light "kept station" with the plane during the left turn. Since the copilot sat on the right side of the airplane the light would have been on the outside of the turn. This implies a rather high speed, at least high for a squid boat(!).”​

(http://www.brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html).

Finally, by extending the radar directions you are essentially using the radar direction information as if you believed the radar was picking up the object (otherwise, why would the radar point in the direction of the object?). But it is clear from the diagram that the radar showed much shorter distances to the object that where your “lines” converge. The radar can't provide the direction to an object (within its range) without also providing a distance.

Hence there is a contradiction in Astrophotographers diagram. He can't have the radar indicating the direction to the HSB without it also providing the range! Simply the radar targets were not as far away as his “convergence area”.

What about the efforts of the PEL scientists associated with the P-3 orions just a short while after these events? They demonstrated that AP was quite common. The scientists also noted this when monitoring the radar at Wellington.

“Both the upper atmosphere balloon data (temperature, humidity) and the tests carried out by the radar technician show that atmospheric refraction could not account for the interesting radar targets even though skeptics claimed that all the anomalous radar targets were the results of atmospheric effects.”

(…)

“The problem with this argument is that the "normally anomalous" radar targets, presumably the normal ground clutter resulting from normal atmospheric refraction, were appearing and disappearing close to the coast, whereas the targets reported near the airplane were more than 20 miles from the coast where there was no ground clutter.”​

(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)

 

[Rramjet]

And still Rramjet completely refuses to even acknowledge that my questions about Freidman's arguments exist.

Why is that Rramjet?

I answered you points here:

In reference to: UFOs: Challenge to SETI Specialists
Nuclear Physicist / Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman 5/02
(http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfufovsseti.html)
(...)

I made those points in direct reply to your questions and discussion, you are free to rebut them if you like.

 

[wollery]

I answered you points here:


I made those points in direct reply to your questions and discussion, you are free to rebut them if you like.

The questions I posted were rebuttals to you points.

Any chance of you actually responding to them?

 

[GeeMack]

I answered you points here:

But you haven't once addressed the possibility that all these unidentified flying things were actually manifestations created by gods to goad some mentally ill high school kid into believing in aliens and making an ass of himself by writing thousands of posts on an Intenet forum. What sort of rebuttal do you offer to that, Rramjet? Or are you just conceding that the "UFOs = gods" theory beats the crap out of your stupid "UFOs = aliens" claim?

 

[Marduk]

has he posted any evidence for aliens at all yet ?
or are we still proving Gods

 

[Astrophotographer]

Given that the fleet was 200km to the South East of Pegasus Bay, then any boat going to it would NOT cross the bay… it would travel along the coast. Look on the map! Such a boat would be travelling AWAY from the sighting area.

Please do. I can not even see what you are saying. Travel along the coast? Why would they travel along the shoreline and risk potential grounding? Why not go out to the open water (the bay) where navigation is easier and free of the shoreline hazards. I am not familiar with the Pegasus bay area but there are usually routes that commercial craft have to follow in and out of a port. Most of them send the ships out into the center of the harbor/bay before giving them free reign to execute their course. It has to do with managing the shipping traffic. Obviously, you are not a seaman.

So given the sighting occurred at the end of December, Dr Maccabee had already spoken to the pilot etc just a couple of weeks after. Then again in February, just over a month after the event

Over a month later. Don't you think the potential for error creeps in with the passage of time?

The pilot was consistent in his recollections of the event.

Feel free to present evidence of this.

But you have “misrepresented” the sightlines! Note for example your line from “point D” and the line from the second to next point above that. They are drawn completely in the wrong direction!

I just drew the lines with a basic direction. I did not realize you wanted a precise direction in them. It really does not matter, they all point towards the same general location and not away from it.

And you take all the sighting directions as “accurate” (yet still manage to misrepresent them!) to suit your own purpose – then simply IGNORE the two latter sighting directions! (or start hypothesising “other lights”!

Sigh....My point of this entire exercise is to

1) Point out that Maccabee's diagram is not much different than Ireland/Andrews with the exception of points shown at E. However, Ireland and Andrew were working from Macabee's original article. Because of what Ireland and Andrew pointed out, it seems Macabee made a few "corrections" to his later image.

2) These sightlines point to one general area as if the light was not moving at all (or moving very slowly), which is contrary to the storyline of the object jetting about.

If you want to argue about the accuracy of these lines, feel free to redraw them but you will get a similar result (see below). If you want to state these sightlines are not accurate, then you basically are stating that it is impossible to determine where the light was located and just about any information is to be questioned.

To me, the E sightlines are out of place and are suspect when compared to the others. Exactly what were the conditions of the craft and crew, when these sightlines were made? Was the plane in a bank? Was the crew occupied with something else? Exactly how precise are the estimates? What if the co-pilot (who apparently gave these sightlines) was looking more towards the rear of the craft and earlier in the turn?

Finally, by extending the radar directions you are essentially using the radar direction information as if you believed the radar was picking up the object (otherwise, why would the radar point in the direction of the object?). But it is clear from the diagram that the radar showed much shorter distances to the object that where your “lines” converge. The radar can't provide the direction to an object (within its range) without also providing a distance.

Hence there is a contradiction in Astrophotographers diagram. He can't have the radar indicating the direction to the HSB without it also providing the range! Simply the radar targets were not as far away as his “convergence area”.

The radar data is from memory. We don't have any actual data to work with. The same can be said for the sightlines (Macabee mentions they are estimates). We have no idea exactly when these points actually happened (I think only one is actually recorded in the dialog between Wellington and the plane - pt C). If you look at Maccabee's original plot, he points out the first radar contact was at 28km out. Suddenly, when he wants to refute Ireland/Andrew, he changes this radar contact to having occurred much earlier (less than 20km out and only two minutes after takeoff). Apparently, Dr. Maccabee was not sure when the first radar contact was and only after some reflection (and possibly some persistent questioning of the witness to see if he would alter his time estimates) pushed it back because of the close convergence identified by Ireland/Andrew.

Since you have problems with the way I drew the sketch I posted before, here is a revised one with the lines drawn a bit more carefully. I also added a blue line showing where Maccabee's original plot was for his radar reading. One might be able to see why he decided to alter it after conferring with the witnesses. The projected convergence area changed a bit but it is not significant. The sightlines with the radar data estimates still indicate a target could have been stationary and was not "jetting about".

“Both the upper atmosphere balloon data (temperature, humidity) and the tests carried out by the radar technician show that atmospheric refraction could not account for the interesting radar targets even though skeptics claimed that all the anomalous radar targets were the results of atmospheric effects.”

Well, the only balloon data he presents is for Christchurch. This is a bogus data point since all the contacts came from Wellington radar which was about 180 miles to the northeast. The plane was between Wellington and Christchurch meaning that any sample at christchurch would not be a sample of the atmosphere between the plane and the Wellington radar. It was that atmosphere that affected the radio waves from the radar and not the atmosphere at Christchurch. I thought I pointed this out some time ago.

The problem with this argument is that the "normally anomalous" radar targets, presumably the normal ground clutter resulting from normal atmospheric refraction, were appearing and disappearing close to the coast, whereas the targets reported near the airplane were more than 20 miles from the coast where there was no ground clutter.

Using Maccabee as a catch-all response does you no favors. My question is about the studies done AFTER the incident by the PEL scientists. They observed anomolous contacts out in the ocean and not close to shore (See the photograph by Ireland published in Klass - it shows an AP contact well off the coast where there was no ground clutter). The same thing can be said for the P-3 orion chases. Is there a reason you choose to ignore those who were actually observing and studying the effects of AP on the actual radar? It is completely unscientific.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

deleted because I should read more of the thread and find out if three or four people beat me to the punchline.

A

 

[Rramjet]

Please do. I can not even see what you are saying. Travel along the coast? Why would they travel along the shoreline and risk potential grounding? Why not go out to the open water (the bay) where navigation is easier and free of the shoreline hazards. I am not familiar with the Pegasus bay area but there are usually routes that commercial craft have to follow in and out of a port. Most of them send the ships out into the center of the harbor/bay before giving them free reign to execute their course. It has to do with managing the shipping traffic. Obviously, you are not a seaman.

You just come out of the inlet… and turn right. The direction of your fleet is 110 nm Southeast – for the start of your voyage you travel parallel to the coast to get there. Less than a mile offshore is water deeper than any major vessel could ever wish for. Even very close to the shore is water as deep or deeper than the inlet and harbour. No need to go out into the bay – especially 60+km or more (!) as you contend by the positioning of your SB! I really think you SHOULD have a LOOK at a map of the area before you contend such obvious nonsense as above. (Google maps will give you a good view) Oh, and the harbour is Lyttelton if you were wondering and it is positioned about 8km inside the inlet.

Over a month later. Don't you think the potential for error creeps in with the passage of time?

I guess you didn’t read the statement above that Dr Macceabee had spoken to the aircrew less than two weeks after…and that a mere FOUR DAYS after the event the copilot recorded his recollections of the event on tape!

I stated:
The pilot was consistent in his recollections of the event.

Feel free to present evidence of this.

What the…? Is that the best you can do? Nowhere in ANY of the literature has the pilot’s statements been contradicted or demonstrated to have changed in any way. YOU make the allegation, YOU must provide the evidence. Mere unfounded assertion will remain just that…unfounded! But of course this is an old debunker trick, just sling the mud and hope some of it sticks – who cares that there is no truth to it, just sling it anyway! Someone might believe you!

I just drew the lines with a basic direction. I did not realize you wanted a precise direction in them. It really does not matter, they all point towards the same general location and not away from it.

Ha! “Basic direction” is your code for “drawing inaccuracies to support a preconceived hypothesis”. YOU are the one wanting to “position” the SB. If you cannot do so from the radar data…then you are in a bit of trouble don’t you think. Besides, the radar provides direction AND distance. And those distances STILL do NOT match your “lines”!

You can’t have it both ways Astrophotographer – either the radar provided the direction and distances, or it did not, you can’t have it providing ONLY the direction… (and even then your attempt at “locations” at crossed lines does NOT work! LOL)

Sigh....My point of this entire exercise is to

1) Point out that Maccabee's diagram is not much different than Ireland/Andrews with the exception of points shown at E. However, Ireland and Andrew were working from Macabee's original article. Because of what Ireland and Andrew pointed out, it seems Macabee made a few "corrections" to his later image.

Huh! It has already been shown that Ireland and Andrews distorted THEIR diagram to suit their hypothesis (ignoring the pilot’s evidence in the process).

2) These sightlines point to one general area as if the light was not moving at all (or moving very slowly), which is contrary to the storyline of the object jetting about.

Yeah, and that is an object tracking the plane! …and moving closer to it all the while(!), then taking evading action as the plane tried to turn toward it. Besides, your “lines” criss-cross all over the place!

If you want to argue about the accuracy of these lines, feel free to redraw them but you will get a similar result (see below). If you want to state these sightlines are not accurate, then you basically are stating that it is impossible to determine where the light was located and just about any information is to be questioned.

You keep missing the radar distances! You can extend lines all the way around the world if you like, I am sure they are bound to meet up somewhere! LOL. But they are just lines…you need to account for the distances!

To me, the E sightlines are out of place and are suspect when compared to the others. Exactly what were the conditions of the craft and crew, when these sightlines were made? Was the plane in a bank? Was the crew occupied with something else? Exactly how precise are the estimates? What if the co-pilot (who apparently gave these sightlines) was looking more towards the rear of the craft and earlier in the turn?

According to Startup's book,( Startup, W. and Illingworth, N. (1980). The Kaikoura UFOs. Auckland: Hodder and Staughton), as the plane passed 3000 ft altitude and everyone could now see the bright light…

"Bill decided to see if they could get a radar fix on it. " The radar had been turned on and placed in the standby mode as standard procedure before the plane took off. So, now he turned it to the mapping mode and set it for the 50 mile range. The radar beam scanned left 60 degrees and then right 60 degrees, a complete cycle every 3 seconds. "And there it was...a big clear target just inside the 20 miles range, exactly in the direction of the object they were looking at. Bill switched down to the 20-mile range. Up came the image, in exactly the same relative position. It was 18 miles away. The blip was strong and clear, almost three-eighths of an inch long, the same form of image Bill was to see many times later when he watched aircraft being tracked on the radar screens at the air traffic control centre in Wellington." There was relative movement between the plane and the object as "he could see a distinct trail of after-images, glowing less brightly than the latest one to appear." Bill took the anti-glare hood off the radar screen so Bob Guard could see it. "Together they kept an eye on that radar target throughout the encounter... Bob agrees that the object they were watching throughout this time was in the same relative position as the return on the radar screen." (pp 138-139)

"As the climb continued after the first radar sighting, the object retained its same relative position, about 30 degrees to the right of the aircraft, for two minutes. Glancing occasionally at the screen Bill knew that its range was still constant at 18 miles. Then visually it seemed to be getting closer and a check on the radar showed the range slowly closing down to 15 miles. The row of after-glowing images on the screen was stretching out slightly." Then "the radar range closed to 12 miles and then, in less than 15 seconds by Bill's estimate, it was down to ten miles, right on the range marker." Bill had set the plane on automatic pilot that kept the plane at a constant direction, constant speed (150 kt) and constant climb rate (1000 ft / min). Therefore any sudden change in speed was due to the object: "Apparently, therefore, the object in the sky, which had been pacing along keeping station just a little slower than the Argosy, had suddenly slowed down so that the gap was closing. And, in fact, if Bill's memory is right that the gap closed from 12 miles to ten miles in 15 seconds or less, then it must have actually moved toward the aircraft because the rate of change was about eight miles per minute and the aircraft was travelling at only three miles a minute." (p. 141)

As the gap closed, though, something else started to happen. The relative position of the object suddenly started to change. Both the radar set and visual observation showed it slowly moving out to starboard. From its position about 30 to 40 degrees off the nose it drifted out in the next two minutes or so until it was at 60 degrees and of f the edge of the radar screen and finally (to) 90 degrees, in the three o'clock position off the starboard wing tip. (pp. 141-142)​

Remember Bill Guard recorded his recollection just four days after and Startup was interviewed by Dr Maccabee (less than two weeks after).

The radar data is from memory. We don't have any actual data to work with. The same can be said for the sightlines (Macabee mentions they are estimates). We have no idea exactly when these points actually happened (I think only one is actually recorded in the dialog between Wellington and the plane - pt C). If you look at Maccabee's original plot, he points out the first radar contact was at 28km out. Suddenly, when he wants to refute Ireland/Andrew, he changes this radar contact to having occurred much earlier (less than 20km out and only two minutes after takeoff). Apparently, Dr. Maccabee was not sure when the first radar contact was and only after some reflection (and possibly some persistent questioning of the witness to see if he would alter his time estimates) pushed it back because of the close convergence identified by Ireland/Andrew.

Since you have problems with the way I drew the sketch I posted before, here is a revised one with the lines drawn a bit more carefully. I also added a blue line showing where Maccabee's original plot was for his radar reading. One might be able to see why he decided to alter it after conferring with the witnesses. The projected convergence area changed a bit but it is not significant. The sightlines with the radar data estimates still indicate a target could have been stationary and was not "jetting about".

Dr Maccabee states that his corrections were made because:

“ The first change corrects a mistake on the part of this investigator, the radar did not require 3 minutes to warm up after it was turned on because it was already in a warmed-up standby condition, a fact which I was unaware of until after the publication (…) The second change results from the actual measurements of the radar sweep range. Previously the value had been estimated”​

(2nd letter, Applied Optics)

Thus the second rendering of the diagram is therefore the most accurate, accounting for more recently accurate information. Your implication that Dr Maccabee changed the diagram to suit his own purposes is mere cover for your embarrassment at the fact that YOUR cited sources (Ireland and Andrews) DID exactly that (ignored the data to suit their own purposes)!

Well, the only balloon data he presents is for Christchurch. This is a bogus data point since all the contacts came from Wellington radar which was about 180 miles to the northeast. The plane was between Wellington and Christchurch meaning that any sample at christchurch would not be a sample of the atmosphere between the plane and the Wellington radar. It was that atmosphere that affected the radio waves from the radar and not the atmosphere at Christchurch. I thought I pointed this out some time ago.

On the Southbound leg:

“The captain reported that the flying weather was excellent and he was able to use the automatic height lock, which would have automatically disengaged had there been turbulence that would change the altitude of the aircraft. The sky condition was "CAVU" (clear and visibility unlimited). The air crew could see the lights along the coast of the South Island, extending southward to Christchurch about 150 miles away.

At about 0005 (12:05 A.M., local time, December 31, 1978), while they were crossing the Cook Strait, 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, seem to 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.” ​

(A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978)

On the northbound trip it was the plane’s radar that continuously tracked the object.

Using Maccabee as a catch-all response does you no favors. My question is about the studies done AFTER the incident by the PEL scientists. They observed anomolous contacts out in the ocean and not close to shore (See the photograph by Ireland published in Klass - it shows an AP contact well off the coast where there was no ground clutter). The same thing can be said for the P-3 orion chases. Is there a reason you choose to ignore those who were actually observing and studying the effects of AP on the actual radar? It is completely unscientific.

My question to you is did ANY of those “studies” track a single target for an extended period of time, maintaining both radar and visual identification? No, they did not.

 

[Stray Cat]

On the northern leg, in this case the target was on radar continually for minutes and they could track it relative to the airplane. True, they couldn't tell by eye how far away it was, but the directions correlated over a long period of time (minutes), which is quite strong evidence.

Sorry Rramjet, you haven't conclusively shown how anyone can accurately measure by eye a light source against a black sky and black sea to be able to tell how far away it was to be able to confirm it was the same blip that was on the radar.

Until you can do this, you can not say that there was any radar visual tie up.

First:

“A SB does have a green running light. Regulations specify that the running light have a rating of only a hundred watts or so. A photograph a 100 watt bulb at 12 nm under the conditions of this sighting the light would make no more than a faint image on the film, if there were no other lights around. However, the glare of the white lights, totalling several hundred thousand watts of power, would completely cover up the feeble light from the green bulb. Therefore the green "dot" could not be an image of the green running light on the HSB.”​

(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)

Second, The 100 watt (or so) bulb can be seen a couple of miles when not competing with a hundred kW or more. But the bright white lights are so dazzling that only a "monster" optical system could resolve a 100 watt bulb (red or green) that would be within a few feet of a group of 10 -20 10 kW bulbs from a distance of a few miles, to say nothing of a distance of 10 miles. Crockett's camera had a 100 mm lens and was not a such a "monster" optical system.

"Legal Requirements: Vessels are required to show the proper navigation lights from sunset to sunrise in all weather conditions, good and bad. During these times, no other lights that could be mistaken for lights specified in the Rules of the Road can be displayed, nor any lights that impair the visibility or distinctive character of navigation lights, or interfere with the keeping of a proper lookout."
Source

So yes, your Maccabee quote clearly demonstrates that I was correct and he is misrepresenting the regulations in regard to navigation lights. The regulations don't state what power the bulb has to be at all. They state the Minimum Distance it has to be visible from. So let's get this clear: We are talking about the minimum distance that the navigation light has to be visible from, not the boat. So it follows that if a boat has got some big bright white lights on it that would drown out the usual navigation lights, that boat would have to have proportionally bright navigation lights that still show clearly and distinctly from the big bright white lights. This is shown to an extent here with the boat in the photo having two quite distinct green strip lights along it's starboard 'lighting arm'

And if you looked at the navigation lights link I posted earlier, you would have seen that apart from the green (starboard) and red (port) running lights, the regulations also state that active fishing boats (including squidding boats) are required to show a green light above a white light. Again this distinction has to be visible from a minimum distance of 2 miles (or 3 miles depending upon the boats physical size).

IF it WAS “blurring” then the green protrusion shown in the photo would be even LESS distinguishable than it is – especially given the above!

And given your above is incorrect, perhaps you will now reconsider your conclusion in light (no pun intended) of the new accurate information.

In Ireland's large report (referred to by Astrophotographer), Ireland mentions the satellite photo (that doesn't show a boat fishing in the Pegasus Bay at around midnight). Ireland then he suggests that a hypothetical squid boat could have "turned on" after the satellite went over! This would seem to be an extremely unlikely scenario. What was the boat DOING there all the time…just waiting for the satellite to go out of range? I don’t think so.

If the satellite photo was not taken at the same time as the airplane was seeing a light from that general direction it is entirely possible that a SB could have been between it's active fishing grounds and not lit up to it's full extent. Certainly a lot more possible than an alien flying saucer had come across the universe to mess temporarily with a TV crew. But from what I gather from what Astrophotographer has pointed out, a single squid boat would probably not have shown on the satellite photo anyway.

 

[Rramjet]

Do you know how narrow the TV and radio signals we use are? Do you know why we use them like that?

Have they the power to reach across interstellar space? I don’t think so… so what is SETI looking for…? It is looking for a directed signal from an ETI. What makes you think an ET would send such a signal, let alone direct it at earth?

That’s two VERY large assumption right off the bat. THEN SETI has to search…how many star systems?... There’s a needle in the haystack for you!

Can a radio station tell who has received their Radio broadcast?

According to the ratings agencies they can! LOL. But what is the context of this question?

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't look because we haven't seen any evidence so far?

I am suggesting that given its chances of success, SETI is a massive waste of resources. That’s all. We would be better to follow up the evidence that we are already being visited.

Do you know how searches for extra-solar planets might identify signs of life? More importantly, how would they identify signs of intelligent life?

Signs of life is easy. Atmospheric chemistry is the clue there. Intelligent life? Well, if we discover a planet with signs of life then we point a radio telescope at it. Simple really. Why waste all the resources SETI does when there are alternatives that hold much more promise?

Before our leaders can deal with aliens our leaders need to know that the aliens are there. Who's going to find these aliens and open the channels of communication?

SETI? Open the “channels of communication”? I like optimism – but this is another WILD assumption! Does ET want to communicate with us? For what reason? They have already demonstrated a singular lack of interest in direct communication.

Do you think that a belief that UFOs are alien craft is incompatible with support for SETI?

I don’t “believe” any such thing – but the UFO debunkers sure seem to! Again, SETI is a waste of resources. Alternatives are available.

It's a reasonable question to ask. If they should already be here then where are they? Have they made direct contact yet?

Perhaps they are merely self-interested and they don’t want to risk advanced technology falling into our hands. Perhaps they are ethical beings and realise that (as with our own experience) contact of advanced cultures with primitive ones invariably leads to no good outcome for the less advanced. Perhaps they are doing research and don’t want to “contaminate” the sample. There are many reasons…

You claim to be a scientist, and to understand the scientific process. So, in your own words, please explain what's wrong with the SETI project from a scientific perspective.

From a “scientific” perspective…? It’s a demonstrated massive waste of resources It’s literally a million(s) to one shot based on a number of unfounded assumptions). There are more promising lines of research available.

 

[Correa Neto]

 

[Sledge]

Have they the power to reach across interstellar space? I don’t think so… so what is SETI looking for…? It is looking for a directed signal from an ETI. What makes you think an ET would send such a signal, let alone direct it at earth?

So aliens have the power to fly a vessel across space, but not to send a detectable signal? Explain.

 

[Correa Neto]

Simple- they have to save energy to cross the gap between Earth and the places outside the borders of what we call nature (wahtever that means).

 

[Rramjet]

Sorry Rramjet, you haven't conclusively shown how anyone can accurately measure by eye a light source against a black sky and black sea to be able to tell how far away it was to be able to confirm it was the same blip that was on the radar.

Until you can do this, you can not say that there was any radar visual tie up.

So the radar says it is X size in Y direction at Z distance. I look in Y direction and see a light. There are no other lights to be seen. Over a period of many minutes the radar continuously tracks this object as it changes direction and distance, all the while I note that the light can be seen ALL the time, without variation, right where the radar suggests I should look – no matter what direction and distance the radar is reporting. That’s about as conclusive as it gets short of crashing into the damn thing! But of course you cannot even do that – because it takes evasive action, all the while being tracked on radar and seen visually!

Make of that what you will, but THOSE are the FACTS in the case.

So yes, your Maccabee quote clearly demonstrates that I was correct and he is misrepresenting the regulations in regard to navigation lights. The regulations don't state what power the bulb has to be at all. They state the Minimum Distance it has to be visible from. So let's get this clear: We are talking about the minimum distance that the navigation light has to be visible from, not the boat. So it follows that if a boat has got some big bright white lights on it that would drown out the usual navigation lights, that boat would have to have proportionally bright navigation lights that still show clearly and distinctly from the big bright white lights. This is shown to an extent here with the boat in the photo having two quite distinct green strip lights along it's starboard 'lighting arm'

Dr Maccabee merely implies that a 100W (or so) navigation light could easily be seen up to the regulated 1-3 miles. I don’t see how that is misrepresenting anything. The whole point is that navigation lights would pale into insignificance under the glare of kWs of squid boat light. Especially when photographed at the distance supposed of (around)12nm. I hardly think that squid boats “beef up” their navigation lights to compete with their fishing lights, that would be a TOTAL (and unnecessary) nonsense!

However, your photo IS misleading! It DOES NOT show “navigation lights”! ALL the lights you see are the fishing lights. The colour is an ARTEFACT. Some lights are angled toward the camera (the outside ones), some away (the inner ones). Perhaps you should learn something about photo-optics at night!

If the satellite photo was not taken at the same time as the airplane was seeing a light from that general direction it is entirely possible that a SB could have been between it's active fishing grounds and not lit up to it's full extent. Certainly a lot more possible than an alien flying saucer had come across the universe to mess temporarily with a TV crew. But from what I gather from what Astrophotographer has pointed out, a single squid boat would probably not have shown on the satellite photo anyway.

So you contend a squid boat floats idle for the better part of the night and THEN decides to start fishing? Just after the satellite passes over and just before the plane arrives? Besides, it has already been shown that the ministry had NO boats at the time and place. That would mean it was fishing illegally – and why would it do that when it could have joined its companions at sea AND WHY would it do that when it WOULD have been seen doing so from shore (not to mention the nightly plane flight)! I don’t think the Japanese would risk NZ not allowing them port facilities or applying some sanction or fine or removing their fishing rights (in other words creating a totally unnecessary international incident) just so ONE boat could fish? When all the others were happy out at sea? Your proposal is simply preposterous Stray Cat.

 

[Stray Cat]

SETI? Open the “channels of communication”? I like optimism – but this is another WILD assumption! Does ET want to communicate with us? For what reason? They have already demonstrated a singular lack of interest in direct communication.

Oh no... The crop circle researchers have been lying to me all these years.

If you can't trust a crop circle researcher... who can you trust?... a UFOlogist?

 

[Rramjet]

Simple- they have to save energy to cross the gap between Earth and the places outside the borders of what we call nature (wahtever that means).

Your deliberate misrepresentation is becoming tiresome Correa Neto.

UFOs have demonstrated their capacity to operate "...outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural world".

Obviously you have nothing to say about the subject so you decide to begin deliberately misrepresenting what I stated (many times AND directly to you). This is a typical UFO debunker modus operandi. When they cannot refute the evidence directly, they resort to deliberate distortions and misrepresentation. WHERE are your "scientific" principles now Correa Neto? LOL.

 

[EHocking]

...UFOs have demonstrated their capacity to operate "...outside the limits of what we take to be the boundaries of the natural world"....

Evidence? ^[TM]

 

[Akhenaten]

Have they the power to reach across interstellar space? I don’t think so… so what is SETI looking for…? It is looking for a directed signal from an ETI. What makes you think an ET would send such a signal, let alone direct it at earth?

How many times do you need to be told Rramjet, that nobody is expecting to detect a signal that is directed at the Earth?

What is your background in the principles of radio frequency transmission. Is it as comprehensive as mine?

Hint: If you dare to anwer this particular question, you're going to find out. It won't be pretty.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't , eh?

Soz.

That’s two VERY large assumption right off the bat. THEN SETI has to search…how many star systems?... There’s a needle in the haystack for you!

Well, I have to admit, VERY large assumptions right off the bat are within your area of expertise, no question.

According to the ratings agencies they can! LOL. But what is the context of this question?

This doesn't work very well without Willery's bits, does it? I'll bet it would have been even worse if I'd included them though.

I am suggesting that given its chances of success, SETI is a massive waste of resources. That’s all. We would be better to follow up the evidence that we are already being visited.

If only we had some.


How could you not see that response coming? Geeze Louise.

Signs of life is easy. Atmospheric chemistry is the clue there. Intelligent life? Well, if we discover a planet with signs of life then we point a radio telescope at it. Simple really. Why waste all the resources SETI does when there are alternatives that hold much more promise?

my bolding


You're a genius, there's no doubt about it.

SETI? Open the “channels of communication”? I like optimism – but this is another WILD assumption! Does ET want to communicate with us? For what reason? They have already demonstrated a singular lack of interest in direct communication.

Asking the same stupid question twice in just one post hasn't worked the last few hundred times you tried it. How do you rate your chances this time around?

I don’t “believe” any such thing – but the UFO debunkers sure seem to! Again, SETI is a waste of resources. Alternatives are available.

What's a UFO debunker, Rroger?

Perhaps they are merely self-interested and they don’t want to risk advanced technology falling into our hands. Perhaps they are ethical beings and realise that (as with our own experience) contact of advanced cultures with primitive ones invariably leads to no good outcome for the less advanced. Perhaps they are doing research and don’t want to “contaminate” the sample. There are many reasons…

Who the hell are you talking about?

From a “scientific” perspective…? It’s a demonstrated massive waste of resources It’s literally a million(s) to one shot based on a number of unfounded assumptions). There are more promising lines of research available.

Fill yer boots, me hearty.

Report back here when you've got it all sorted.