This means the radar operated immediately when Startup switched from "standby" to “mapping mode” after seeing the bright light ahead.
If you say so. Where is the radar data tape to confirm this?
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.”
I wonder how he figured he got within 10 miles when there was no radar contact at the time?
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!)
It sounds like he executed the turn as soon as he saw the light. Does that sound correct? Was it an exact 90 degree turn or was it 89 degrees? What data can you present to verify that the turn was precisely 90 degees?
Scientists get paid for their work Astrophotographer. In case you had not noticed, that is the way the world works.
Based on what you have described about your situation, scientists apparently don't get paid very well. Of course, we do have the scientific investigation conducted by the PEL scientists. Oh that's right, only UFO proponent scientists count in this sort of thing.
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).”
You have yet to demonstrate this "confirmation" by explaining how one can tell the distance of a light by pure visual observation. The film had no time associated with it and can not be used for precise confirmation of when it was filmed.
So make you unfounded assertions as often as you like – I will just keep coming back at you with the EVIDENCE.
But you can't confirm the radar contact with the light. How do you know he actually was filming the true radar contact? What if the radar picked up something else and the light was much farther away? Prove that the radar contact and the light were one in the same.
So what WAS it? If not “mundane” then by definition it is “alien”.
You have yet to rule out all possibilities and you have not demonstrated that boats of any kind were not in the area. Keep peddling Dr. M's story though. I am sure it works well with the UFO crowd.
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”!
It certainly sounds like your mind is made up. The evidence is inadequate. It is based on what the witnesses recall happened. The PEL scientists knew this. You seem to reject anything that does not conform to your own beliefs. Congratulations.
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.
It is as unlikely as an alien spaceship? Your objections are incorrect. You continuously claim that anlaysis has shown that it could not be a hoax but Dr. Hartmann, who did the analysis, did change his opinon and stated it was probably a hoax. Oh, that's right, since he is not a UFO proponent scientist, his opinion does not matter.
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!
The "creationist" school of thought is very simliar to that of UFOlogists then. Aliens created these UFOs, which defy all natural laws because of their superior knowledge and intellect. Of course, we have no evidence that such aliens really exist do we? Isnt' this the same as your interpretaion of "creationism"?
Where are your scientific principles NOW Astrophotographer?
When did I EVER claim to being a scientist? I know of only one person in this forum that has made the bold claim that they are a practicing scientist and implied their opinion is beyond reproach.
Of course you ignore my explanatory statements and misconstrue the ones I DO make – how could I have expected anything more from you?
Then you are not clear in presenting your "evidence". It is the same way you keep redefining what you are trying to prove.
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.
Really? In one statement you imply that we don't know what the limits of the natural world are. In the other you are stating that gods exist outside those "unknown" limits. Since the "limits" of the known natural world are, by your definition, "undefined", then we can not say for sure where 'gods' exist.
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!
You know I have lived a pretty long life and have chased a lot of things I thought were "intriguing". I lost a sum of money in what I thought was an intriguing adventure. I thought the "ancient astronaut" theory was intriguing at one time. I thought that intriguing evidence existed for a creature like bigfoot about the same time. Even in later years, I was intrigued by "cold fusion". However, I discovered that a lot of "intriguing" things usually are not what they seem. As a result of my experience with these things, I have developed a sense of skepticism towards wild claims. What you have presented here is no better than "ancient astronauts", "cold fusion", and "bigfoot". The evidence is not that compelling and this is why scientists (other than a select few) bother wasting their time with it.
It must be the longest time I've spent on one of these yet.
