However you stated it was later determined to be 92 degrees. So what was it? 92, 80, 90, 100?
The turn was actually 92 degrees:
“…the explicit statement of the captain that he turned from 033 magnetic to 125 magnetic or 92o” (Maccabee, B. (1980) Applied Optics. Vol 19. No. 11 / June). HOWEVER, what difference does it make if it was “92, 80, 90, 100?” (as you claim)…? The POINT is that to support your SB hypothesis (when you are not supporting the “gods” hypothesis!) you rely on Ireland and Andrews making out the turn to be 120 degrees! THIS is
entirely at odds with the pilot testimony and your complaint here is merely an attempt to COVER UP the fact that Ireland and Andrews, while having access to the evidence, simply
made up an angle of turn to suit their own preconceived notions!
Then we have this quote in the Kingston Gleaner of January 2, 1979 (p 7):
Captain. Bill' Startup, pilot of the Argosy freighter aircraft from which the- film was shot, said of the largest object sighted:
"It was spectacular I have never seen anything like it in 23 years of flying" he said, "It was a very bright white light. We first saw it about 18 miles ahead of us. It appeared to stay still until we got within 10 miles. Then it turned with us as I changed course. It went above us. circled and came down beneath us. It was making definite, movements in relation to us.
This does not seem to agree with his story told later.
How is this “inconsistent”?
“ S’s first impression was that he was looking at the full moon without seeing any features. (The moon had set in the west many hours before). G described it as a “squashed orange.”
(…)
“Sometime during the interval from 0222-0225 G scribbled a note “close as 10 miles; 170 knots; pace aircraft.” At about 1225-0225:30 the target went off radar because the azimuth angle to the target had increased from 30o to beyond 50o which was the maximum angle that the scope would display. Before it went off the scope it may have come close as 8-10 miles, according to S, who had the best view of the scope. G remembers it as being at least as close as 12 miles. F recorded “We must now be about 30 miles outside Christchurch and that bright light is still with us. According to Captain Bill Startup it came as close as 10 miles to us…”
About 0227: (S) contacted W and said that the plane was 32 miles out of CH at an altitude of 11,500 feet and that there was a “great big target sitting at. Uh, 3:00 to us … at about 12 miles.”
(Maccabee, B. (1979) The MUFON UFO Journal, No. 136. June. pp.13-14)
If you read Klass, you would be aware of the investigation. I gave that reference long ago. However, here is a source from the AP on January 26, 1979 (European stars and stripes)
Freak atmospheric 'conditions rather than visitors from outer space caused the UFOs filmed by a television crew and spotted by others over New Zealand, the New Zealand air force reported Thursday...
The report said the lights were almost certainly from surface or planetary sources affected by atmospheric reflection, refraction or distortion. It said atmospheric conditions over New Zealand at the time were conducive to freak effects on radar and light waves
This was also presented in the NOVA program (which I also provided a reference for) I find it interesting that the report and its analysis is never presented by Maccabee on his website. I guess that is using the Friedman rule of "What the public doesn't know, I am not going to tell them".
As for your question, are you talking about the Pegasus Bay contact? They pointed out that this contact was not tracked by Christchurch or Wellington radar meaning it was very close to the ocean or on it.
Interesting!
Klass published the squid boat explanation in his book, UFOs, THE PUBLIC DECEIVED (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1983). After citing his reasons for agreeing with Ireland and Andrews, Klass wrote, "If the bright object photographed in Pegasus Bay was not a squid boat, the only plausible alternative is that it was an extraterrestrial craft from a distant world." (
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html) Huh!
In reference to Christchurch radar:
Since the target was about 18-20 miles away from the plane at about 30O to the right, and since the plane was about 15 miles from CH, the target was 32-35 miles from CH. Since the CH radar had a “cone of silence” that extends upward from ground level as the distance from the airfield increases at a rate of 100feet/mile, an object below 3000 feet, at 30 miles would not (normally) be seen. A weak target for 50cm radar might not be detected even at altitudes somewhat greater than 3000 ft. at 30 miles. Since the object was not detected by CH radar it was probably at an altitude of around 3000 ft. or lower. Since the airplane radar was operated in the mapping mode the 3cm airplane radar beam could have picked up a target at a lower altitude.”
(Maccabee, B. (1979) The MUFON UFO Journal, No. 136. June. p.14)
Your “source” mentions a conclusion about AP, but provides NO reason for that conclusion. It is merely
speculative! They are simply “guessing”! Something like “AP have been observed in the area – therefore what was seen MUST have been an AP”! Rubbish. I asked you to tell me whether any of the observed AP were able to be tracked by radar continuously over a period of minutes while visual confirmation was forthcoming - thus replicating the Argosy experience – but of course you cannot DO that because no such replication was found!
You are a broken record. Just because you see a light in the same direction you have a radar contact does not mean they are the same thing. So when you state it was in the same location, what you mean is it was in the same direction. A witness can not accurately determine the range of light seen in darkness without a point of reference.
Given that the radar indicated an object in a specific location (direction and range) and the only visible target was to be seen in precisely the direction the radar indicated, then by reasonable causal inference we assume the two to be one and the same…HOWEVER IF you are proposing they are NOT the same…then we have another target in the same direction that is INVISIBLE! That is one visible target that does NOT register on radar and one invisible target that does… don’t you think this is stretching credibility a little far…? IF you maintain your position (two targets as described above) then you MUST explain TWO targets – not one… can you DO that?
Besides you argument contradicts your preferred explanation of ONE squid boat. So WHICH IS IT Astrophotographer – ONE target (radar/visual) or TWO targets (visible/invisible)? The latter of course immediately rules out “squid boat”…
And while we’re on “squid boats”:
There are a number of facts, both physics-based and nonphysics-based that reduce the probability that “squid boat” (SB) is the explanation.
(1) The first non-physics fact is that a thorough search by Dr. Ireland of NZ government records of the locations of fishing squid boat (which are required to report their fishing locations) did not find any record of a boat fishing in the Pegasus Bay.
(2) Another non-physics fact is that the crew of the airplane did NOT see a bright light ahead of them before they entered the cloud layer (during the climb out of Christchurch) even though, if there had been a SB with its fishing lights on at a distance of about 40 nm or less from the aircraft –
they could not have missed seeing it. This is important because it was only about a minute later, as the plane climbed above the cloud layer, that the witness had their first view of what appeared to be a large, very bright light (The captain's immediate reaction was to ask, "Is that the moon?"). That would mean that the Hypothetical Squid Boat (HSB) just happened to turn its lights on while the plane was in the cloud. A coincidence? (Other boats in the squid fleet had turned their lights on at least by midnight - when they were detected by a satellite)
(3) When the light was first seen the captain turned the already-warmed-up radar into its mapping mode and found a strong reflection (radar target) that seemed to everyone who looked at the radar screen to be in the direction of the light. This was when the plane was about 7 nm out of Christchurch. For many minutes afterward the direction to the light seemed to be the same as the direction of the radar target, which implies that the light was the radar target.
(4) a physics (optics) fact is that a detailed analysis of the initial film images at
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html) shows that the images are elliptical or elongated with the left end higher than the right end. The tilt was roughly 45 degrees. At the time of these images a HSB would have been 30 - 40 nm away and sitting horizontally on the water. This is incompatible with the tilted images (see
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html - reason 12)
(5) attached is a map presenting your suggested explanation: a HSB at about 29 nm from the initial viewing position and 30 degrees to the right of straight ahead and a Hypothetical non-SB (HNSB) at the initial radar distance, 18 nm, and (initially) in the same direction as the HSB. Also shown is the sighting line to the light at the time that the copilot called Wellington to report a large "target" at 3:00 and 12 miles. Where the sighting lines cross is the ASTROSQUIDBOAT (ASB). A physical fact is that a HSB at this location would appear to slowly move to be ahead of the aircraft – (back toward the 30 degree position as originally sighted out from Christchurch), rather than at the 3:00 position as last reported before the turn– and as it was seen to maintain in relation to the aircraft after it turned to the right by the amount (92 deg) recalled (from day 1) by the captain (he recalled turning from 033 to 125 deg magnetic), and then turned left again to resume its original heading.
“After several minutes of travel along the southeastern path the pilot still didn’t have a direct view of the light, so he turned the plane to the left to regain his original heading (point 26 on Figure 6). According to the copilot the light “kept station with us” on the right hand side as the plane turned to the left. That is, the object at the right side traveled at a speed large enough to stay “outside the turn,” at about the same “o’clock position” (like 3:00) as the plane turned left.”
(A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978 -
http://brumac.8k.com/)
You might like to move the HSB to attempt a better locational fit to the data, but any reasonable location is so far from the airplane and camera when the first several hundred film images were obtained that the images of the HSB would not be elliptical or elongated with a tilt of about 45 degrees.
Klass suggested another ship that happened to be closer. Remember, there were low clouds that would obscur a possible second contact that had just navigation lights illuminated. Can you show me that other ships were not present in the area?
NO ships were seen in the area and the Ministry responsible had no record of ships in the area.
Also, I think Startup's turn away from the light was something that indicated he might have known what the light was. He stopped flying towards the light as they closed the range. Strange response for a man on a UFO hunt.
First, Startup was NOT there to “hunt” UFOs! He had a job to do and he was doing it! UFOs were the passengers concern! Of course he was interested in what was going on – who wouldn’t be? – and he was accommodating as far as that went – but he was responsible to the company for the plane and its normal cargo. Startup turned toward the light to see what would happen. He found he could NOT “fly towards it at all”! The object kept evading his heading! So after 90 degrees of turn this was obvious, so then Startup had a choice, continue turning to complete a 360 degree circle or simply to turn back to his original heading – he chose the latter course – the course of a responsible pilot doing his job! It’s only “strange” in your head Astrophotographer.
The boats could have standard Nav lights. The low level clouds would obscur them. You keep saying that there were no boats but yet to have provided evidence that there were no boats anywhere in the flight path. You also repeat the claim that the ministry of agriculture had no boats but that is not true as listed in Ireland's comments in his article. However, are you really stating the ocean was devoid of any vessels that night? All merchant vessels, fishing trawlers, fishing craft, naval vessels, etc. were in port that night or someplace else? That seems extremely odd doesn't it? Did international/interisland commerce cease operations that night?
According to Stray Cat they have kW of navigation light power! But such seeming idiocy aside - YOU make the claim of “boats”, therefore YOU have to provide the evidence that there WERE boats in the area! ALL the evidence that we know of indicates that there were NO boats in the area. IF you have any evidence to the contrary then PRESENT it!
Also you seem to prefer a source (Ireland and Andrews) - who is KNOWN (has been shown) to misrepresent the facts - over the first hand witness accounts? (but how could I expect anything better from you given your track record?)
IF you can produce ANY port records showing boats departing port to head across Pegasus Bay at the time of the sighting then DO SO! As far as anyone can tell, international commerce or not (oh master of the red herring!), there simply WERE NO BOATS at the time and place. If you say there were boats, then produce the records!
You have not proven anything. That is why it is inadequate. You have suggested it has ruled out items but it really has not. There are unknown variables not taken into account. Presenting an unsolved mystery is not the same thing as solid evidence.
WHAT unknown variables? It is “unsolved” because it is a UFO! Not because the sighting did not occur! ALL the evidence points toward a UFO - NOT AP NOT SB – but UFO. We have radar/visual/film conjunction. THAT is evidence Astrophotographer…
Back to McMinnville:
I will reply to this section of your post later – but it must be noted (with no surprise) that Sheaffer has played some tricks on us with his (unpublished!) 1969 paper (
http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html). He has since updated the original paper (that is:
” Electronic version (with revisions) compiled April, 1999. Some additions compiled Nov. 5, 1999. Links revised March 30, 2002.”) but has provided NO indication as to WHERE he has done so! Thus we can no longer be sure WHAT the paper WAS when Hartmann must have seen it! This is absolutely
typical of UFO debunker trickery. Hartmann is supposed to have changed his mind after viewing Sheaffer’s analysis, yet Sheaffer has now
changed that paper so that we can no longer know WHAT Hartmann saw in it! Ughh…Dealing with UFO debunkers is like dealing with a freshly caught eel. Just when you think you have a handle on them, they go and
change their position and wriggle out from underneath you!
In other words, you have no evidence that is good to support your claim. Make up your mind or give up the ship. Using UFO "buzz words" like "intelligently controlled objects" and "defy concepts of the natural and technological world" are just weasel words when you are afraid to say "aliens".
1. What evidence do you have that proves they are intelligently controlled?
2. What evidence do you have that proves they defy concepts of the natural and technical world.
BTW, gods can fit into this category. They would be intelligent and they would defy concepts of the natural and technical world. Why are you so dismissive of that being a possibility?
What term would YOU ascribe to objects that take evasive action when an attempt at approach is made, then returns to station after the approach attempt is called off (this case)? What term would YOU use to describe an object that flees from, and then chases an F-4 (Tehran case)?
In the Tehran case, how would you describe an object that is able to split apart and rejoin while in flight?
…and do you REALLY believe in the “gods” hypothesis? Of course you do NOT! It is a mere attempt at “mischief making” on your part. There is NO attempt to by you “get to the truth” in any of the cases I have presented. All you are really interested in is misinterpretation, misinformation and obfuscation of the cases. You do NOT attempt to clarify things, in fact you attempt precisely the opposite!
However, you have refused to look at other sources of information and have steadfastly refused to consider opposing opinions. That indicates a close-minded approach and that your opinion is beyond reproach. Your actions speak louder than your words.
That is a blatant untruth (to be polite) Astrophotographer. I cite MANY different sources – as you well know! This is merely the pot calling the kettle black! “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”! LOL.
This is a false assessment. I guess you are not a specialist in psychology either (So far we have determined that you are not much of a specialist in anything). I am just more careful in chosing what I am willing to take at face value. If I see a person proclaiming something that appears to be too good to be true, I am going to question him. My financial loss was not that significant but it taught me a lesson about trusting people. The same thing can be said for my trust in those presenting questionable stories about exotic events. It is learning lessons from past mistakes. Perhaps you might take a lesson in learning from others. I can point at many cases where UFOlogists failed to learn this lesson (Dr. M. being one of them). They were taken in by hoaxers and liars but refused to learn from those errors.
Clearly you now have (self-admitted) “trust” issues. But you “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. You refuse now to even attempt to “sort the signal from the noise”. Since your “experience” of being ripped off by con-men, IMO you now have the attitude of a “convert”. ALL witnesses are liars, hoaxers, and misperceivers. ALL data is suspect.
Everything to do with the subject is now “bunk”. ALL people involved are “gullible” or “biased” (or both). Plainly your “experience” has a affected you negatively Astrophotographer and obviously IMO you remain in denial about that.
In summary, your evidence fails to compell. Case after case has been presented and those that have been reading this thread feel there are many potential areas to pursue other than intelligent beings in advanced technology craft (or whatever you want to call it). Like so many UFO proponents, you can continue to believe what you desire. However, if you really were a scientist (and I am VERY skeptical of this claim based on your presentation here), then you certainly would gather more information and make your case to real scientists and not waste it in a skeptical forum. Certainly, you could convince your fellow scientists who would be more "open-minded". Is it possible that you know you can't convince them any better than you have convinced us and felt it was far easier to pontificate in this forum. This way you can appear as the ultimate authority on the subject? Is this a method to inflate your own ego because it needs inflating?
So you think it is “easy” for me to be doing what I am doing in this forum? That you can say so reveals much about how little you can empathise with the circumstances of others. I don’t simply “believe what I desire”. I examine the
evidence both for and against and decide according to the
weight of that evidence. However, if you think that what I am doing makes me “appear to be the ultimate authority on the subject”, then I must be doing something right! LOL. …and I can assure you, my experience in this forum is definitely NOT an “ego inflating” one. This forum seems steeped in negativity. It is a constant struggle to maintain a positive outlook in the face of the abuse and negativity I receive in this place. My faith in humanity is sorely tested every time I read what others have written in this thread. But if I am to make any positive difference in this world I must at least try to “know the enemy”. Who are the people that hold back humanity’s progress and what are their ideas? How DO they think? If I have proved anything, it is that Festinger and his Cognitive Dissonance theory is right on the mark! You could do worse things than to learn about that theory.
