UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

First, if that was the case then the determination of shape would have been that much easier.

And the altitude that much lower. In the case of a 45 degree viewing angle, if the line of sight distance were 150,000 feet then the altitude would have been a shade over 100,000 feet.

Second, the distance calculation is a basic trigonometric calculation (we know the base distance, and we know two angles). As to which camera the distance was calculated from makes only a minor difference in the resulting distance calculation.

To suppose that one of the cameras was almost directly underneath the objects is an unwarranted assumption. It would require either that they knew where the objects would be, and chose to place one of their cameras directly under it, which would not make much sense, or that the object coincidentally flew directly over one of the cameras, which is fairly unlikely.

You’re making many unwarranted suppositions here.

Which of my suppositions are unwarranted? I'm making points, not suppositions.

The bottom line is that the observers and the mathematicians knew their jobs (they were employed to track and gather precise information on V2 rocket variant tests – as you claim – up to the same altitudes). They would not have produced statistics and observations that could not have been legitimately defended. They determined the distance and the shape. They would not have stated such things in a report if the error margins were such as to make those statements indefensible. That’s the bottom line here wollery.

They determined the altitude and shape, approximately. Also, I never said that they produced statistics or observations that they couldn't defend, that's your strawman.

As to Rogue River:

We have GoodYear running tours from Tillamook to the area in 1947, but that is the only year we have them doing that. If they did that in other years, it would have been mentioned in the record of activities that we do have. We also have a GoodYear blimp in Salem in 1950 (not 1949) used as an advertising platform – but there is no indication that it went to Rogue River (in 1949). So your “historical confirmation” is a directly false and misleading statement.

Now who's making false and misleading statements?

This is a view from the Goodyear blimp on May 6, 1949, of Bush Pasture park before Willamette University's McCullough Stadium was built.

May 6, 1949. Not 1950, 1949. May 6 1949, which is less than 3 weeks before the Rogue River sighting.

So there was a blimp in the area in the same time-frame.
Stop trying to pretend that there wasn't.

Besides, the eyewitnesses unanimously described a “circular” object (like a coin or a pancake) that had distinctive features quite unlike a GoodYear blimp (and especially the lack of an emblazoned GoodYear logo, gondola, engines and fins!) moving at speeds of a jet plane!

All of which has been dealt with ad nauseam in this thread.

The historical record suggests no blimp. The eyewitnesses described an object quite unlike a blimp. That is the bottom line here wollery.

And yet, despite all your protestations and your false and misleading information you haven't convinced anyone of any of that.

 

[Jocce]

“So to speak”? What does your statement mean Jocce? Perhaps you would care to explain your meaning?

The test results could be explained by the UNKNOWNS being known objects in different proportions than in the group identified as KNOWNS. (That is, a greater percentage of the UNKNOWNS are aircraft than the percentage of aircraft in the identified KNOWNS.

LOL. No, you don’t have to be psychic to realise that your statement (if it makes any real sense at all – which I doubt) is unfounded and may be dismissed as such.

The potential error sources are very clearly described by the authors and I have attempted to clarify it further for you.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The bottom line is that the observers and the mathematicians knew their jobs (they were employed to track and gather precise information on V2 rocket variant tests – as you claim – up to the same altitudes). They would not have produced statistics and observations that could not have been legitimately defended. They determined the distance and the shape. They would not have stated such things in a report if the error margins were such as to make those statements indefensible.

Argument from authority.

The thing is, you're arguing that the calculations wouldn't be in a report if they weren't correct - yet you've also admitted that the calculations contain at least one error. Both can't be true.

 

[wollery]

Argument from authority.

The thing is, you're arguing that the calculations wouldn't be in a report if they weren't correct - yet you've also admitted that the calculations contain at least one error. Both can't be true.

No, he hasn't admitted that.

The only errors we can ascertain are Dr MacCabee's in assessing the potential pixel size of the image on the film.

We can't know if the observers made any errors, because all we have are their final results with no associated error calculation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, he hasn't admitted that.

Yes he has.

The only errors we can ascertain are Dr MacCabee's in assessing the potential pixel size of the image on the film.

Which is an error in the calculations.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, is your refusal to discuss Delphos any longer a tacit admission of the fatal errors in your version of a process of elimination? Do you recognize now what others have recognized long ago and tried to point out to you? The fatal errors which show up at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle, and now your Dismay at Delphos, among others?

 

[Rramjet]

You stated that heavy metals don't have latency periods, and even suggested that I hadn't provided any evidence that they do because there isn't any. I provided evidence that shows your statement was false. I have misrepresented nothing.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
See the difference?

You've suggested that their symptoms could be caused by more than one type of radiation as one way to reconcile the differences between the typical timings and those given in their description.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?

Similarly we can suppose more than one type of heavy metal, each with its own effects.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
See the difference?

One or more to cause the immediate vomiting and swelling, and one or more others with latency periods to explain their other symptoms.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
Notice anything about that comparison?

It's no less plausible than your suggestions. We could even suppose some other causal agent for their vomiting, and then heavy metal poisoning with a latency period to explain their other symptoms.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
Notice anything about that comparison?

Explain how the actions described in the account can last for as much as1 hour.

Those actions are;
1. Being woken up by a dazzlingly bright light and a loud humming noise.
2. Thinking the end of the world has come.
3. Falling to their knees in prayer.
4. Having those prayers interrupted by violent vomiting.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
Notice anything about that comparison?

Nope. Radiation poisoning is the only single causative agent that can produce that pattern, but as I have repeatedly noted, radiation symptoms, and the timing of the course of those symptoms is also typical, and in this case the signature timings don't fit with the description we have.

The case defies mundane explanation.

Furthermore, swelling without discomfort isn't typical, neither is a short period of vomiting.

My face swells up and I vomit. Am I not discomforted?

No, we can't be "reasonably sure" of those descriptions. How bright was the light? I pointed out in the previous post how Cowgill's description could be different from theirs. The same applies to the "no heat" description. Maybe the doctor misheard what they said.

Cause (Bright light, no heat), symptoms (vomiting, skin damage, swelling), latency period (days delay in seeking medical attention), symptoms (virulent sores, loss of hair, “truly horrible” state).

Why would a doctor, when asked about his patient's symptoms, not give a full description? Why would Cowgill not report those symptoms? Why would a high fever be a "finer detail"? Why would it be "unseemly" for Cowgill to report a symptom such as fever?

So you have dropped your assertions of “diarrhoea” in that regard then…

But radiation doesn't actually fit the symptomatology…

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?

…making it implausible…

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?

…and since there were no radiation sources in 1886 Venezuela it certainly isn't mundane…

Yes, the case defies mundane explanation.

…yet you seem loathe to admit that or dismiss such an implausible non-mundane explanation.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?

Furthermore, I've shown how heavy metal poisoning could fit the symptomatology.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
See any difference?

 

[Rramjet]

We don't know the distance. We only know the calculated altitude.

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950"

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c) The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.​

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)​

And the altitude that much lower. In the case of a 45 degree viewing angle, if the line of sight distance were 150,000 feet then the altitude would have been a shade over 100,000 feet.

Pure unfounded assertion. The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.

To suppose that one of the cameras was almost directly underneath the objects is an unwarranted assumption. It would require either that they knew where the objects would be, and chose to place one of their cameras directly under it, which would not make much sense, or that the object coincidentally flew directly over one of the cameras, which is fairly unlikely.

The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.

They determined the altitude and shape, approximately.

No, they would have determined those parameters (including size by the way) precisely and then allowed for an error margin.

 

[Rramjet]

And yet they drew blimp shaped pictures of it.

The five witnesses unanimously described a circular object (like a coin or a pancake) and the qualified draftsman drew a circular object as seen from slightly below in a three dimensional representative format. You are simply observing a sophisticated, three dimensionally representative, technical drawing from an unsophisticated, two dimensional perspective. That does not surprise me - but it is nevertheless an erroneous perception.

May 6, 1949. Not 1950, 1949. May 6 1949, which is less than 3 weeks before the Rogue River sighting.

So there was a blimp in the area in the same time-frame.
Stop trying to pretend that there wasn't.

May 6 in Salem is not May 24 at Rogue River. The historical record does not indicate any blimp at Rogue river at the time, indeed the record we do have suggests that GoodYear ran a tour in 1947 only. The eyewitnesses unanimously described a circular object (like a coin or pancake) with features quite unlike a blimp (no emblazoned logo, no gondola, no engines, no fins, moving at the speed of a jet plane).

 

[wollery]

Yes he has.


Which is an error in the calculations.

No, he hasn't.

He has admitted that Dr MacCabee made an error, but Dr MacCabee had absolutely nothing to do with the original report. So his error, in analysing the case 40 years after the fact, has no bearing on the possibility of errors in that original report.

 

[TjW]

[
The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.

So what is that legitimate, defensible reason?

 

[wollery]

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
See the difference?


Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?

You keep repeating that, but I've given a method by which heavy metals can reproduce the course and the symptoms. To deny that, without showing why it is impossible or unlikely, is irrational.

My face swells up and I vomit. Am I not discomforted?

Read the account. It states that their faces and upper bodies swelled, but there was no discomfort. In that light your statement above is just spin. Desperate and obvious spin. The academic papers that you linked to state that swelling caused by radiation exposure is itchy and painful. That would be the discomfort they should have felt, yet they stated that there was no discomfort associated with the swelling.

Why did they not report an extended period of nausea and vomiting, which is typical of radiation poisoning? Why did they report rapid onset vomiting, which is not typical of the sort of dosage that would leave them all alive at least three weeks later?

Why don't you answer these questions? Is it because you can't?

So you have dropped your assertions of “diarrhoea” in that regard then…

Diarrhoea might have seemed too unseemly to Cowgill to report, or to the doctor to pass on, but fever and widespread infection? Why would these be unseemly to report? Why would they not be included as symptoms by a doctor? You fail to answer these questions.

Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?


Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?


Yes, the case defies mundane explanation.


Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Radiation sickness: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
See any similarity?


Venezuela: Cause, symptoms, latency, symptoms.
Heavy metals: Cause, latency, symptoms.
See any difference?

Is that all you have?

You yet again ignore the issue of your responses to me and Jocce about your dismissal of the burns hypothesis, and now you're ignoring my question about how the described actions can take up to an hour. Instead you've replaced any reasoned discussion with a mantra based only on a vague description of the victims symptoms.

Why are you so married to radiation poisoning as the cause?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.”

So what is that legitimate, defensible reason?

That the parameters reported were in accord with the usual, accepted standard for the type of observation. That standard would of course be very high, considering the usual application of such expert observation and analysis was in the context of tracking and reporting precise data on V2 rocket tests up to similar altitudes.

 

[wollery]

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950"

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c) The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.​

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)​

Pure unfounded assertion. The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.


The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.


No, they would have determined those parameters (including size by the way) precisely and then allowed for an error margin.

All I can only conclude from this post is that you don't actually know how triangulation of aerial objects works, and don't understand that these analysts would absolutely certainly not have used the word "altitude" if they meant "line of sight distance". They said "altitude", and specify that it was calculated from "elevation" and "azimuth" readings. These are technical terms that have specific meanings. Elevation is the angle between the object and the horizon (where the horizon is defined as being at the same altitude as the observing platform). Azimuth is the angle between the object and a fixed point (usually north) usually measured clockwise from that fixed point. Altitude is the vertical height above the ground, usually fixed at sea level, although it can be the vertical height above the observing station.

You're starting to sound desperate, in defence of the analysts, despite the fact that the argument is about Dr. MacCabee's calculations after the fact. The analysts did their job, which was to measure and calculate the height of an object above the ground. Producing a value that tells you only how far away from the camera an object is by line of sight would be worthless in the circumstances, and frankly just pointless in general.

The fact is that Dr. MacCabee made an unwarranted assumption that the altitude was the same as the line of sight distance, i.e. the objects were directly over one of the cameras.

Admit that and move on, it makes no difference to the facts of the White Sands case.

 

[wollery]

The five witnesses unanimously described a circular object (like a coin or a pancake) and the qualified draftsman drew a circular object as seen from slightly below in a three dimensional representative format. You are simply observing a sophisticated, three dimensionally representative, technical drawing from an unsophisticated, two dimensional perspective. That does not surprise me - but it is nevertheless an erroneous perception.

Covered in detail, ad nauseam, upthread.

May 6 in Salem is not May 24 at Rogue River. The historical record does not indicate any blimp at Rogue river at the time, indeed the record we do have suggests that GoodYear ran a tour in 1947 only.

And yet we have an historical record of a Goodyear blimp, in the general area in the same general time-frame as the Rogue River sighting. The only way you could show that it wasn't that same Goodyear blimp at Rogue River was if the photograph was dated May 24, 1949.

Simply put, the record shows that there was at least one blimp in operation in that area during May of 1949. All of your objections to the presence of blimps in the general area are moot. There is definitive proof that a blimp was in the general area in the general time-frame.

The eyewitnesses unanimously described a circular object (like a coin or pancake) with features quite unlike a blimp (no emblazoned logo, no gondola, no engines, no fins, moving at the speed of a jet plane).

Covered in detail, ad nauseam, upthread.

 

[wollery]

I stated:
” The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”. The observers and analysts knew their jobs (they were specifically trained to undertake the observations and were used to tracking and obtaining such information on V2 rockets up to similar altitudes). They would not have called the distance from the camera an altitude without legitimate, defensible reason.”

That the parameters reported were in accord with the usual, accepted standard for the type of observation. That standard would of course be very high, considering the usual application of such expert observation and analysis was in the context of tracking and reporting precise data on V2 rocket tests up to similar altitudes.

So, when tracking V2 test rockets to a particular altitude they would report only their line of sight distance from the cameras?

Are you sure you want to stick with that argument?

 

[Rramjet]

You're starting to sound desperate, in defence of the analysts, despite the fact that the argument is about Dr. MacCabee's calculations after the fact. The analysts did their job, which was to measure and calculate the height of an object above the ground. Producing a value that tells you only how far away from the camera an object is by line of sight would be worthless in the circumstances, and frankly just pointless in general.

The fact is that Dr. MacCabee made an unwarranted assumption that the altitude was the same as the line of sight distance, i.e. the objects were directly over one of the cameras.

The report stated that the objects (four of them) were sighted overhead between the base (Holloman) and Tularosa Peak. That is a distance of 7 miles (36,960 feet). The altitude was reported as 150,000 feet.

Assuming the object was directly above Tularosa peak (at 150,000 feet elevation above the ground) and the camera was at Holloman - giving both the maximum possible distance from the camera to the peak (7 miles) and from camera to object - and using trigonometry - that gives 154,000 feet (line of sight) from the camera to the object. We can assume however that the objects were closer to camera than directly over the peak – however – even using the maximum possible distance – that represents only a 2.6% difference (between 150,000 and 154,000 feet). If we then use your calculation of an image size of 113 pixels (and not Maccabbee’s error of 140) - that means 110 pixels – the difference is negligible and certainly still enough to determine size and shape. So you are correct (altitude or elevation or distance from the camera):

…it makes no difference to the facts of the White Sands case.

 

[Jocce]

The analysts calculated the distance from the camera as 150,000 feet and called it an “altitude”.

Completely unfounded assertion. They reported an approximate altitude, not an approximate distance. Two completely different things.

 

[Jocce]

The five witnesses unanimously described a circular object (like a coin or a pancake) and the qualified draftsman drew a circular object as seen from slightly below in a three dimensional representative format. You are simply observing a sophisticated, three dimensionally representative, technical drawing from an unsophisticated, two dimensional perspective. That does not surprise me - but it is nevertheless an erroneous perception.

And when drawing pictures of it they drew them with an oval, blimp shaped, outline.

 

[Rramjet]

And when drawing pictures of it they drew them with an oval, blimp shaped, outline.

Sorry, but not even that statement is correct. If you look at the following drawings of the object, I will explain:

(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

First a question to you. According to you, since the outlines of the two drawings are different, then there were TWO objects sighted (a fat one and a skinny one). Where in the eyewitness testimony does it mention two objects? Of course the witnesses sighted only one object, so how are we to interpret the differing outlines of the two drawings?

First we must note that the eyewitnesses described a circular object (like a coin or a pancake) and that drawings we see above are constructed in such a manner so as to show us a three dimensional perspective on a circular (like a coin) object.

Noting the uppermost drawing: Imagine a coin with a slight curve or bulge outward in the both upper and lower faces. Imagine then you are looking at that coin at arm’s length and from slightly below. You will see the lower face of the coin as slightly elliptical and you will see a portion of the edge of the coin that is closest to you - as indicated in the upper drawing - with the upper face of that coin hidden from your view (the arrow in the drawing is indicating a motion of the object at right angles to your line of sight from left to right). There is a small triangular fin on the object, but it is partially hidden from your view because it is on the upper face and the angle you are viewing it from hides the lower part of it.

Noting now the lower drawing: Imagine you are looking at that same coin directly edge on (from neither above, nor below). Also imagine that it has that small, right angled triangular fin - with the vertical edge placed against the edge of the coin - on the upper face. Now rotate that coin so that the direction of motion is slightly away from you (away from the fin at the rear). You will now see portions of both the upper and lower faces (because of the slight bulge in those faces) but you will see (because it is travelling at an angle away from you) a larger portion of the upper right rear face and a smaller portion of the upper left rear face (that would otherwise be hidden from you if the object were travelling at right angles to your line of sight). The slight downward slope of the direction arrow in this drawing is meant to indicate the object is travelling away from us - into the page so to speak.

From the perspective described above it can be seen that what you are attempting in your statements on the matter Jocce is to mischaracterise the drawings. As this follows closely on the heels of your misrepresentative and misleading statements on the Battelle data and analyses, it becomes legitimate to suppose that what you are actually attempting with your statements is an obfuscation of the research and evidence – to muddy the waters so to speak – rather than to make any genuine attempt to clarify and understand the research and the evidence. One is entitled then to ask what the purpose of such deceptive, obfuscating statements from you is. That is; Who are you attempting to deceive - yourself - or the readers of this thread – or both?