Great, where do we have the exact time that the radar was turned on, the range it was selected to, and the target range? It all revolves around the recollections of Startup. You have yet to demonstrate they are 100% accurate in any way.
In his book Captain Startup mentions a list of over 100 items that must be checked as part of the routine procedure before airplane takeoff. Startup writes, regarding the takeoff from Christchurch (note: much of the book is written in the third person):
“Bill decided to see if they could get a radar fix on it. As a routine procedure, the set had been warmed up and switched to standby when they took off."
(Startup, W. & Illingworth, N. (1980).
The Kaikoura UFOs. Auckland: Hodder and Staughton p. 138)
This means the radar operated
immediately when Startup switched from "standby" to “mapping mode” after seeing the bright light ahead.
That is "well after the event". Might I suggest you read Frank Drake's article on witness reliability from UFOs: A scientific debate. He interviewed many witnesses regarding a bright fireball event and discovered the accuracy of these reports faded with time:
"The first fact we learned was that witnesses memory of such exotic events fades very quickly...after 5 days people report more imagination than truth" (p 248)
Then there is also THIS article: AIR FORCE PUT ON UFO ALERT by David Guthrie-Jones (The Melbourne Sun. Jan. 2nd, 1979). From which we have:
“As we were climbing out of Christchurch at 3000 feet I spotted a light traveling parallel to us. We turned 90 degrees and got within 10 miles of it.”
NOTE THE DATE Astrophotographer! That is just TWO DAYS after the event! So much for your
“claims made well after the event”! Startup mentioned the angle of turn just TWO DAYS after the event! I have just demonstrated YOUR “claims” to be utter nonsense! (Remember we also have co-pilot Guard’s recollections tape recorded just FOUR DAYS after the event and ALSO the reporter’s and film crew’s comments AT THE TIME of the event!)
I can't believe that you are saying it is OK for Dr. M to accept money to endorse a hoax (he did receive money to write a section in Walters' book) and think up all sorts of exotic reasons why it could not be a hoax. However, you take Ireland and Andrews to task over how they interpreted what a witness stated. One is an honest (contrary to what you claim) mistake. The other is engaging in a conspiracy to create/cover-up the evidence for a hoax. Sure Dr. M. could be just plain gullible and is blinded by his belief in UFOs and ETH to prevent him from recognizing what most people have pointed out. However, if he is this gullible, one has to look at how this "gullibility" has affected his other work on UFOs. So, Dr. M. is either very gullible and will allow that to influence his writings or he deliberately ignores information that indicates he must or could be wrong.
Scientists get paid for their work Astrophotographer. In case you had not noticed, that is the way the world works.
Moreover, Ireland and Andrews demonstrably IGNORED the evidence! It was NOT a matter of mere
interpretation… EVERY source that notes the angle of turn - published
before Ireland and Andrews – notes that it was 90 degrees (actual turn 92 degrees)! We know for a fact that they had Dr Maccabees report that cited a 90 degree turn and as it urns out there were OTHER sources stating the same thing! I would say Ireland and Andrews effort simply reconfirms the old adage as applied to UFO debunkers:
”Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”!
Astrophotographer, YOU should look at the evidence and look at the analysis! Unless you also conform to the old adage…
I stated:
“In the NZ case we have more than “anecdotal” evidence when we have radar/visual/film confirmation. That is, we have instrumented confirmation to support visual observations (and vice versa).”
That is a false claim. We have gone over this again and again but you keep making the same false claim which you can not prove. You can not prove that any of the lights precisely matched up with any radar target. The film did not even have a clock associated with it and we have no precise idea where/when the film was taken. We also do not have the radar data from the plane and no precise record of what radar contacts were seen by the planes radar, when they were seen, and what was seen. It is all anecdotal. So, to summarize, when you say there is confirmation, you are stating you feel there is confirmation but not that there is definitive scientific confirmation.
Ugh…on the northern leg we KNOW that as soon as the light was seen Startup began tracking it with the plane’s radar – so we KNOW there was continuous coverage from that direction. We also KNOW that the visual and radar correlated. In other words, wherever the radar indicated the UFO was, the witnesses could visually confirm the UFO in that position. Finally we KNOW that the UFO was concurrently filmed (we even have a picture of the UFO through the cockpit window showing the cockpit instruments (A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978. Figure 12 -
http://brumac.8k.com/) – so it does not matter that we do not know the
precise time the film was made – because we CAN narrow it down to within a few minutes (Crockett had 5 ½ minutes of film taken between the time the UFO was spotted and when Startup made his turn and we know all during that time radar and visual confirmation was constant).
So make you unfounded assertions as often as you like – I will just keep coming back at you with the EVIDENCE.
Said the pot to the kettle. You are the one claiming these UFOs are "alien". However, they look just like lights and other prosaic things. What makes them "alien" then?
There is a light tracking the plane (concurrently seen by radar/visual/film). There are NO other aircraft in the area. No known AP phenomenon “tracks” airplanes and is able to be constantly observed by radar/visual/film over a period of many minutes while doing so. No known AP takes positive evasive action when a plane attempts to turn toward it. No boat on the ocean is able to take such evasive action either (and the NZ Ministry of agriculture had any record of boats in the area and NONE were seen in the area by any of the witnesses! So, no planes, no AP, no boats. In other words NO mundane explanation. So where does that leave us? The object seemed to display intelligent behaviour (at least it tracked and avoided the plane). It was visible on radar/visual/film – so it must have been
something. So what WAS it? If not “mundane” then by
definition it is “alien”.
You have not presented evidence that points toward the opposite conclusion. You have demonstrated a will to accept anecdotal testimony and the analysis of one UFO proponent over just about everything else. That is close-minded and demonstrates a lack of interest in looking at other possibilities
I am simply going on the evidence. I have noted carefully all the UFO debunker “explanations” (there are only two): an Anomalous radar Phenomenon and a Squid Boat. Neither of those fit the evidence. So I am perfectly within my rights to reject those “explanations” on scientific grounds. Explanations must FIT the evidence Astrophotographer – if they do not I am entitled to reject them. It is YOU who is being “closed minded” - by rejecting the evidence you too confirm the old adage as applied to UFO debunkers:
“Don’t bother me with the evidence. My mind is made up”!
I stated (in reference to Trent/McMinnville):
”Here you now presuppose knowledge of “alien” craft design also – which again is a complete nonsense. Moreover, there is independent photographic verification of the shape of the Trent/McMinnville craft in (the 1957) Rouen photo (http://brumac.8k.com/trent2c.html).”
Give me a break. The photo has no provenance. The sighting has never been documented in any way as best I can tell and nobody knows the true source of the image. It only demonstrates that it is possible that somebody figured out how to create a hoax image in Rouen.
I just love the way you are able to state categoricals when it comes to your own hypotheses, yet allow NO such thing from UFO proponents in refutation. Now what is the word I am looking for here…. LOL.
I stated:
“Funny also how you shift the burden of proof here – especially since that is a topic debated at some length in this very thread! If YOU propose that a “mirror” was responsible, then it is up to YOU to provide the evidence to support your hypothesis. That is how science works Astrophotographer. Quite simply it is up to the claimant to support their own claims with evidence.”
1. I made the suggestion that this is a potential source of the object based on the work of Carpenter. I never stated it was definitely a truck mirror. It is my opinion that it does look a lot like the mirror though. Because it does look like the mirror shown, I can assume that one might be able to locate another mirror that looks exactly like the object in the photographs. It is far more likely than an alien spaceship.
Sure, if you look hard enough you can find objects that
resemble other objects (when viewed fro certain angles in a particular light) but that means nothing. There are points of notable difference between the “mirror” and the UFO. And this is even
before the photo, witness statement, and site analyses shows that such a “hoax” is extremely unlikely under the circumstances! IF UFO debunkers COULD have, they would have taken the “mirror” and replicated the photos to show that such a “hoax” was even possible. That they have NOT been able to do so (even with today’s access to graphic technology) speaks volumes.
Where did I support "creationism"? Did I say "creationism"? I stated that there is just as much evidence for "god" as there is for ET. If you can't see this, then you are blind.
IF you support the “gods” hypothesis, then you provide defacto support for the “creationist” school of thought. That is: if UFOs were created by the “gods” then that IS a “creationist” perspective!
But of course you do NOT support any such hypothesis. It is mere “mischief making” on your part. Merely saying things that you do not believe with the simple goal to obfuscate the issue. Where are your scientific principles NOW Astrophotographer? LOL.
Is it me or do they both imply evidence of things outside the natural known world? According to you, the defintion of alien means "it lies outside the limits of the natural world" and Gods are "not part of the natural world". They sound a lot alike if you ask me.
Of course you ignore my explanatory statements and misconstrue the ones I DO make – how could I have expected anything more from you?
I stated (and you misquoted) that UFOs operate “outside the boundaries of
what we take to be the limits of the natural world.” That does NOT mean that the limits of the natural world ARE as we see them, just that is all we CAN see at present and those limits might expand in the future to encompass “aliens” – at which point they are no longer “alien” – but part of the natural order of things. The SAME CANNOT be said about “gods”. Gods are by definition – now and forever – outside the natural order of things. There is a clear difference.
Resorting to Shakespeare to support your scientific opinion is just wrong. Couldn't you find a more appropriate example from scientific history? There is a difference between having an open mind and being open to other possibilities and what you are doing here. I would love to see evidence for aliens. Unfortunately, I want more than what you have presented here.
Okay – quantum physics. …and it is
entirely appropriate that I cite Shakespeare’s “there are more things in heaven and earth…” soliloquy. No-one could have dreamt what quantum physics would reveal about the nature of reality before the theory was created – and indeed, there are many who
still cannot “dream” about the implications of quantum physics even WITH the advantage of the theory.
Sure you want more…
everybody wants more… we only have what we have – but what we have is very intriguing and suggestive of possibilities we have not even dreamt of!
It must be the longest time I've spent on one of these yet.
