I stated:
“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).”
And Maccabee alterred his on a preconceived idea. No big deal there was it?
Ireland and Andrews stated:
"…our interpretation of the available evidence is shown in our Figure 1, where the data are drawn principally from a previous detailed report by Maccabee.2." Reference 2 is a history Dr Maccabee wrote of the events with the title "What Really Happened in New Zealand." (Maccabee, B. (1979a).
What Really Happened in New Zealand. Mutual UFO Journal, May) . In that paper Dr Maccabee stated that the plane turned 90 degrees. Ireland and Andrews, by using
that reference to construct their diagram, obviously would have known what the pilot had reported –
but chose to ignore it (!) to construct a diagram that suited
their preconceived notions.
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, August 1979. Vol 18. No. 15)
Thus the second rendering of Dr Maccebee’s diagram is 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 (and ignored the evidence to suit their own purposes in doing so)!
Moreover:
“A search of NZ government records by William Ireland, a scientist who worked at the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), and a skeptic, (!) failed to turn up any record that there had been a SB in the Pegasus Bay, roughly 40 nm from Christchurch. This is significant because by NZ law, SBs are supposed to indicate their fishing locations to NZ government and numerous other boats had done so. An argument was made that the HSB had not reported because it had been fishing within the 12 nm limit and hence would have been fishing illegally. However, an examination of the locations where one might place a HSB (see Figure 1) shows that they all would have been outside the 12 nm boundary. Hence the fishing would have become illegal only if the boat didn't report its location. (So, why not report?) NOTE: A photo (35 mm color slide) of a group of squid boats, taken at a distance of about 30 nm (56 km), shows roundish images. SBs tend to fish in pairs to concentrate their light. (Even when in large groups they pair off.) Hence for a single boat to be fishing alone would not be a typical mode of operation. If there were one, then there should have been two boats in the Pegasus Bay. Figure 1 shows the track of the aircraft as if flew from Christchurch and sighting directions to the bright object as well as a number of suggested locations for the HSB.
Note that this is based on the immediate recollections of the pilot that he turned the plane 92 degrees before he stopped turning in an effort to put the object "on the nose" of the aircraft (see below). (He subsequently turned left to regain the original flight direction.)”
(
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)
NOTE THE NEXT TO LAST SENTENCE:
"...based on the immediate recollections of the pilot that he turned the plane 92 degrees…" Given that we know Dr Maccabee spoke to Startup by telephone less than two weeks after the event then we can infer that this is when Dr Maccabee first became aware of the 92 degree turn.
“That's how I got to see the famous film only eight days after it was taken. A newsman from the TV station in Melbourne (Leonard Lee) brought the film to the USA. 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://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
As for a SB in Pegasus bay - on the southern leg:
“It was 45 minutes after midnight that the Argosy Aircraft with the air and news crews flew south from Wellington to Christchurch, passing over the Pegasus Bay. Yet no one on board the plane saw any light from a SB in the Bay, although such a boat certainly would have been seen had it been there.”
(
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
(and especially if it had Stray Cat’s kW powered navigation lights! LOL)
On the northern leg:
“According the weather report the lower layer of the cloud deck above the Pegasus Bay at about 0220 was 1200 ft or perhaps a bit higher. At that altitude the horizon is 40 nm or more away. A SB is bright enough to be easily seen at 40 nm. Referring to Figure 1 one sees that several of the suggested SB positions are within or barely at the 40 nm range from, the airplane. Thus, if the HSB had had its lights on by the time the plane took off from Christchurch, and if it had been at one of these positions, it should have been seen BEFORE the plane entered the cloud layer.”
(
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
No light was seen until the plane broke through the cloud tops. That means that, if the light came from a SB, it turned its lights on just after the plane entered the 1200 ft layer – a
remarkable coincidence indeed.
