UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Again, that doesn't make the report wrong, but it does make Rramjet's presentation of it, and by association his use of it to ridicule "skeptics", misleading at the very least. Had he presented it simply as "a plausible mundane explanation derived from scientific research" I would have no problem, but he went out of his way to overstate the strength and validity of the report's findings, well beyond the conclusions of the report itself.

So basically that (and the lengthy post that preceded it) was merely to assert that when I stated “ proper, lengthy and concerted, peer-reviewed scientific study”, the only (repeat – only) thing you could actually find wrong with it was a potential misuse of the term “peer-reviewed”? I say “potential” because even you admit that it is by no means certain that the report was not peer-reviewed…(especially given the report author’s statement that they “consulted with numerous experts in specialized fields (who) provided valuable guidance and feel our current conclusions have merit”)

And merely on the basis of that potential you go on to claim I “went out of (my) way”(!) to “ridicule” the skeptics position and to “overstate the strength and validity” of the report’s findings? Please… you’ll have to do better than that wollery if you are to destroy my credibility in this case.

 

[wollery]

So basically that (and the lengthy post that preceded it) was merely to assert that when I stated “ proper, lengthy and concerted, peer-reviewed scientific study”, the only (repeat – only) thing you could actually find wrong with it was a potential misuse of the term “peer-reviewed”? I say “potential” because even you admit that it is by no means certain that the report was not peer-reviewed…(especially given the report author’s statement that they “consulted with numerous experts in specialized fields (who) provided valuable guidance and feel our current conclusions have merit”)

And merely on the basis of that potential you go on to claim I “went out of (my) way”(!) to “ridicule” the skeptics position and to “overstate the strength and validity” of the report’s findings? Please… you’ll have to do better than that wollery if you are to destroy my credibility in this case.

There's nothing "potential" about your misuse of the term "peer-reviewed", as I clearly show and unequivocally state.

Maybe in your haste to refute my post you missed this section

This means that Rramjet's purported peer-review consists of four people (maybe more, although apparently not noteworthy), only one of whom appears to have a PhD, none of whom published a peer-reviewed paper, all of whom were involved in the project to some extent, and one of whom is the founder of the journal in which the report seems to have been published.

This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, peer-review, although Rramjet insists that it absolutely, definitively, was properly peer-reviewed. I can only conclude that he has no idea of what constitutes proper peer-review.

I've highlighted the relevant part for you. Unless you can show that someone properly qualified, who wasn't involved in the project, read the report and offered a constructive criticism then it wasn't peer-reviewed. Or was my description of the requirements of peer-review not clear enough?

Other people can read my post Rramjet, so misrepresenting what I say in the post immediately following it is a rather strange thing to do.

Destroying your credibility would require that you have any left.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, I'm still waiting to find out if you deliberately misrepresented the Delphos, Kansas case by taking measured steps to leave out the information that would point to HOAX, why did you do it?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I feel I am wasting my time again trying to get you up to speed and clearing up some misconceptions. Hopefully, this will be my last post on the matter unless you can provide something new to the table since I am starting to repeat myself in my comments. Anyone interested in looking at what I wrote on the subject can be found at the link I previously provided.

Keane was thought enough of by the SCIFI Channel to spearhead a FOIA courtcase for them against NASA - and such cases don’t come cheap (and a case she won in case you hadn’t noticed).

Are you really stating that SCI-FI Channel is considered a credible research organization? Maybe their court case comes out of a desire for publicity the same way many UFOlogists have done in the past? As for Kean’s “victory”, all she got was the court ordering NASA to turn over the files. NASA could not find them. BTW, what we do know about those files is that there is nothing in them related to Kecksburg. See:

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/exhibit3doc.pdf

Perhaps though you have not read the following article:
An Analysis of the "Kecksburg UFO" Fireball Trajectory and Possible Error

Again, you have failed to read my article on the subject where I addressed Rudiak’s errors. I also contacted Dr. Von Del Chamberlain and asked for his opinion on the matter. He examined Rudiak’s argument and stated it was a good example of confirmation bias. It completely ignored all the other information obtained that supported the photographic analysis. If you had had read my article, you would have known this.

”Skeptics of the 1965 Kecksburg crash love to cite a 1967 astronomical journal article as "proof" that there was no Kecksburg object, but analysis shows numerous faults in in the paper, including an impossible result…” (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43)
let me just state that it is the content of the message that counts, not who states it.

Let’s see, I have a choice of taking the ramblings of a crashed UFO proponent (who is not an astronomer or expert on the subject of photographic analysis), who did not discuss it with the scientist, who performed the initial research/analysis. Rudiak’s research only examined the photographs in a manner that supported the crashed spaceship scenario and his work was not peer-reviewed (something you complained about to RoboTimbo concerning his sources). On the other hand, I have the peer-reviewed paper by two accomplished astronomers, who not only analyzed the photographs but collected the visual reports of dozens of witnesses back in 1965 that produced results similar to the photographs. They had no preconceptions at the time of where the fireball went. They simply followed their data in computing their orbit and direction of travel. They also have seismic data from the sonic boom of the fireball to support their conclusions. I think science wins out over the UFO proponent in this case. Come back to me when Rudiak submits his work to a peer reviewed astronomical journal.

what do we find in the actual article (http://www.cosmicparadigm.com/ufonews/sci-fi-channel-sues-nasa-alleges-ufo-cover-up/)?

” Geoarchaeologist J. Steven Kite says he found no evidence to support the high-speed impact of a meteor or other large object – which Kean says supports witness accounts that a spacecraft landed softly.”
​

That’s it! Now that simple statement does not exactly support all you have claimed in your statement above – does it. In fact it does not support it at all!
Perhaps though you have another source that can? Until then (you guessed it) claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You are having reading problems again.

This is your article:
Mandak, Joe. “Sci Fi Channel sues NASA, alleges UFO cover-up”
December 9th, 2005

This is the one I cited:
Mandak, Joe. "Researcher featured on Sci Fi Channel wants NASA 'UFO' records" December 8, 2005.

Notice the differences? While the author is the same, there are different titles and dates. BTW, you can find a copy at http://ufoupdateslist.com/2005/dec/m09-011.shtml where it states the following:

“Forestry professor Ray Hicks counted tree rings and determined that trees in the area were damaged in 1965. Hicks, however, said the trees were likely damaged by ice, and then snapped off by the wind. He says his findings don't support Kean's claim that "something physically landed" at the site.”

Sure, as you say. But one must question why NASA fought so hard – over many years – and stonewalled to the extent that the Judge in the case reacted:

They did not stonewall anything. NASA said they couldn’t find the files and they still can’t. Is this your proof that NASA was purposefully hiding the files from public view? You need better proof than that. BTW, the index of the files that has been found and published does not even mention Kecksburg.

I stated:
“ In your article you come to the conclusion that it was a Russian satellite (“Kosmos 96” - http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/earthly.htm) and state that “UFOlogists are rarely willing to gather scientific data on UFO sightings.” (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/ashes.htm).

Okay, sure, I stand corrected on that particular point. But you are not exactly categorical either, you leave the door ajar with your “increasingly unlikely.

I find it highly unlikely that something came down and that the evidence presented for this scenario dwindled as one dug further. If somebody can produce actual evidence that something did, I will change my conclusions. Perhaps they did recover a Russian satellite and there was an immense cover-up, which included changing the orbital data. However, that seems very unlikely and is almost as bizarre as the alien spaceship crash involving another massive government cover up.

Moreover …if not a meteor and not Cosmos 96 (or any other man-made object) …what then? Clearly something came down outside Kecksburg in 1965. Your wave-of-the-hand dismissal (“…one now questions if anything really crashed that evening and the new Kecksburg legend is simply wild tales being told by publicity seekers”) is unwarranted and quite simply beggars belief. The police, the fire-fighters, the military, all the witnesses – they all reacted to nothing? Not likely.

No, there is NO evidence that something came down in Kecksburg that evening. You have nothing but stories. There is no physical evidence that anything landed. It was the fireball that gave the impression to people that something crashed nearby in the direction of the woods. This is a common problem with people reporting fireballs. They think it landed just a short distance away when in reality it was hundreds of miles distant. Read the article by Von Del Chamberlain and all the various articles about fireball reports and erroneous estimates.

The FACT is the fireball went in the direction of Ontario and not towards Kecksburg. Either there was a UFO crash and a fireball at the same time or the witnesses who reported the UFO crashing into the woods were mistaken.

It was “acorn shaped” according to the witnesses (and one must ask – if, as you contend, nothing at all came down, how did people arrive at acorn shaped? It would seem a most unlikely shape to come up with if people are simply making things up and lying about it…).

Not really. Once somebody gave the story and it was published (I believe it was Romansky’s that started the “acorn” shape), others just hitched their wagons to it.

Where is your citation?! And if it is not publically available – then where are the relevant quotes so that we can determine for ourselves if your claims in this regard accurately represent what was stated in the article? This is especially pertinent because we have already discovered (above) that your claims were not supported by the article you referenced – why should we believe you this time?

Actually, we have “discovered” that you having problems reading the titles and dates of articles correctly. I got my information correct. You just did not do your homework.
You can read Robert Young’s article (which had the title of “Old Solved Mysteries”) in the book “UFO Invasion” Frazier, Kendrick ,Barry Karr, and Joe Nickell ed. UFO Invasion. Amherst: Prometheus, 1997. If you want to, I can give you his email address. He also commented about it extensively in the UFO Updates discussion list.

How about all the eyewitnesses? You may dismiss their testimony with the wave of a hand – but despite this, they do carry some weight.

How about all the witnesses who stated nothing happened? Why are you dismissing their testimony? Doesn’t their testimony carry weight as well? What about all the witness reports in 1965 that showed the fireball went towards Ontario? Why are you so dismissive of them? You prefer to select on the witness stories from the 1980s and 1990s that support the crashed acorn and not look at the story as recorded in 1965. Nobody claimed any acorn was found in the woods back then. In FACT, the subsequent news accounts stated nothing was found and it was a lot of fuss about nothing.

What evidence do you have to support this?

Bluebook records for the event and press reports at the time (Robert Young wrote about this for his article in the book UFO Invasion). I am sure you can find the appropriate files at Bluebookarchive.org. After further review of what I wrote in my article (I don't have access to my files at this moment), those records indicate only three people were sent. The bottom line is that it was a very small number of individuals and not some large force.

I don’t know where they came from. Where did your AF personnel come from?

They came from the 662nd Radar squadron, which was based nearby. The FACT is there is no nearby army base for all these personnel to come from. Until you can present a source for the hundreds (or are you downscaling it to dozens) of military personnel that were supposedly present, then you really can’t say they existed. I am unaware of any ex-military personnel (other than members of the radar squadron who stated there was no large military contingent present and they found nothing) coming forward stating they were involved. This all indicates that these stories of a huge flatbed, a military personnel carrier, a crane and dozens/hundreds of soldiers with weapons cordoning off the area and conducting searches are simply not true.

Perhaps it has simply been “lost” – just like the fragology files.

It is unlikely that such documentation would be “lost” since there would have been enough in the unit histories and communications to support it. However, what really is missing is any mention in 1965 of all these vehicles and troops arriving in the area. All we have a sensationalized headline that is followed by one comment in the article that the “Army’s” radar squadron personnel were present.

Not so sure about the “hundreds” – but it does seem clear - according to all who were there at the time - that there was a military presence.

Yes but it was just a few personnel from the nearby radar squadron. Your claim was they were there “in force”. IMO, that means there were hundreds. A few technicians and an officer in an official vehicle does not make them there “in force”.

So where is your evidence that the headlines were “exaggerated”?
And now you admit that people did see “individuals in AF/military uniforms”?

“ARMY ropes off area”!

The army was not present and it was actually AF personnel who were present. There is no evidence they roped off anything in the article. Instead it was a headline designed to get people to read the story. Gatty’s only reference in the article to specific military personnel mentioned these AF personnel as members of the ARMY’s radar squadron demonstrating his failure to get the facts right.

Of course, not mentioned by UFO proponents is the headline in the city edition of the paper, which read:

“Searchers Fail To Find Object"

Finally, Robert Young wrote:

“The next day a Greensburg Tribune-Review editorial summarized its staff's independent investigation: Nothing at all seems to have happened (Dec. 11)" (See his article in “UFO Invasion”)

It seems, based on this, that the headlines reporting something crashing into the woods were “exaggerated”.

BTW, I never stated there were no military personnel present because there were a few and I stated so. I just stated there is no evidence that they were there “in force”, which was your claim.

Oh? So what then do you make of the information contained within the following article? I claim it demonstrates clear evidence of a cover-up – what conclusions do you draw?

Keane, L. (2002) Why Kecksburg? A look at the case in context - Project Moondust and Operation Blue Fly: The retrieval of objects of unknown origin. (http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf)

What does this prove? These are more claims that are not cited and Kean draws her own conclusions without proof. Clifford Stone is mentioned and he does not have a very good track record for telling the truth. Moondust/Blue fly were designed to recover any crashed debris. They were specifically focusing on materials from the Soviet Union (not surprisingly). There is nothing in this “article” by Kean that proves Moondust/Bluefly was involved at Kecksburg.

Sure. Not a fireball. But then (by your own admission) not a meteor and not Cosmos 96 - and according to NASA’s top expert - not any man-made object either …The only way out for the debunker is then to state that all the witnesses were either lying or were mistaken and that nothing happened at all! So why were your “five or so AF personnel” there?

I am not sure where you get the idea I stated it was not a fireball/meteor. Perhaps you are confused by the term “meteor” and “meteorite”. A “meteorite” is what’s left of the “meteoroid” that enters the atmosphere and makes it to the ground. In this case, there was no “meteorite” at Kecksburg. What was seen that evening was a fireball, which appeared to some witnesses to have “crashed” into the woods. If you read my collection of articles from 1965 on the event, you will see there were plenty of other communities that claimed the fireball “crashed” or dropped fragments near them as well. Elyria Ohio was full of reports including a fire being started by the meteorite that supposedly landed in a field. See http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/December.htm

There is absolutely no evidence of a UFO/spacecraft/object crashing into the woods that night other than some stories told decades after the event by a few individuals, which tend to collapse under scrutiny. In fact one of these “reliable” primary witnesses (Romansky), was a convicted felon and his testimony is refuted by the town’s fire chief at the time Ed Myers (see Bob Young’s article in UFO Invasion).

If Kecksburg is your “proof” for the US government covering up UFO evidence then your “proof” is inadequate and you have not established this as a FACT.

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, I'm still waiting to find out if you deliberately misrepresented the Delphos, Kansas case by taking measured steps to leave out the information that would point to HOAX, why did you do it?

Well, since Rramjet isn't answering either of us anymore I suppose we can attempt to examine this from his point of view ourselves. The Cowgill letter has been pretty thoroughly covered at this point and it's been made clear (and not refuted by Rramjet) in my last post that when you compare the idea that the letter is factually inaccurate to Rramjet's theory the former is by far the more plausible. I trust that Rramjet will remove the Cowgill case from his list in the future.

So, onward to Delphos!

We know that Rramjet has high standards of evidence, and as he has stated before:

If I considered you to be a reliable witness (in that I had evidence that would allow me to believe your story) then I would still require the independent investigation.

I stated:
”… in all circumstances, at a minimum, I would require evidence of witness reliability and the verified results of an independent, external investigation.”

So, those are our two criteria that must be met to believe the story in the Delphos case. First of all, is the boy a reliable witness? As you've pointed out, he is known to have perpetrated hoaxes including claims of being psychic and seeing a wolf girl. Rramjet has made it clear on multiple occasions that if someone has ever perpetrated a hoax they are unreliable - I'm thinking in this case of comments he made in reference to me. The standards set for "hoax" by Rramjet are very easy to meet, as well - in my case they refer to scaring some kids at a summer camp I worked at. So it's safe to say that the kid in the Delphos case has zero credibility by Rramjet's standards.

In fact, even if this were not the case Rramjet has expressed the opinion that teenagers are gullible and are not reliable as witnesses:

They were gullible kids – what do you expect of them?

So already this is looking very weak. Even so, if we eliminate the boy as a reliable witness we still have the ring that was left behind so I'm willing to move on and look for something that meets his second criteria - verified results of an independent, external investigation. The problem is with finding one. Partly this is caused by Rramjet's own standards again:

(Oh, and RoboT, you really should stay away from sites such as Wikipedia or Encarta – such sites are not peer reviewed and therefore have no acceptable quality control over the information they present)

Rramjet, the sites you link to don't tend towards "quality control" and certainly aren't peer reviewed. Can you link to the results of a verified, external investigation on a peer-reviewed, quality-controlled site?

Otherwise what we're left with here is an irregular circle on the ground, the composition of which does not suggest anything "alien". I think we can cross this one off too.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just some additional commentary regarding Kecksburg.

I stated Clifford Stone was not that reliable. Feel free to read about him here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2005/11/exopolitics.html

This is not a "debunker" website.

 

[Rramjet]

Are you really stating that SCI-FI Channel is considered a credible research organization?

Just one among the many organisations and people who have taken an interest in the case. However, it is not who the messenger is that counts, but the content and quality of the message conveyed. Also, that they fought a years FOIA long court battle against NASA demonstrates they were serious about their interest in the case. That they also placed Keane at the spearhead of that effort showed they were serious about her. The Fox organisation is not in the habit of backing losers.

Maybe their court case comes out of a desire for publicity the same way many UFOlogists have done in the past?

There is no doubt that the SciFi channel would have been thinking that if they could “break” a big UFO case, then the publicity for them would be enormous. Furthermore, if they thought Keane was not up to the job, then quicker than you could blink they would have replaced her with someone who was. Fox is not what you would call a sentimental organisation – pragmatic yes, sentimental, no.

As for Kean’s “victory”, all she got was the court ordering NASA to turn over the files. NASA could not find them.

The court case ran over many years, with NASA stonewalling all the way and with Keane having to repeatedly go back to the court to force NASA to comply with the court’s directions. NASA eventually turned over some files but claimed it had lost some others.

BTW, what we do know about those files is that there is nothing in them related to Kecksburg. See:

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/exhibit3doc.pdf

Don’t you find it just a little odd that there is absolutely no mention of Kecksburg in any of the files? As Keane noted:

It’s worth noting that NASA sent no news articles or clippings about this fireball that was seen over at least four states; was noted by astronomers; and was considered to be a spectacular meteor when it occurred. Seen by thousands, it was covered in major papers all over North America - in Boston, Toronto, Ohio, San Jose, for example - and of course throughout Pennsylvania. NASA did send newspaper stories about other meteors and fireballs and related events around this time, but not this one. Yet, I suspect this was a bigger, more widely reported story than the ones I was sent. The story of the brilliant orange fireball was widely distributed through UPI and the Associated Press – even picked up by the New York Times – and also made it into the Times of London. Why were none of these news stories in NASA’s files, even though clippings of much lesser, but similar, events were? (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/NAS...conclusion.pdf)​

Again, you have failed to read my article on the subject where I addressed Rudiak’s errors.

Perhaps that is because you have failed to provide a citation so we could access it - or a relevant quote so we could see for ourselves what you have done.

I also contacted Dr. Von Del Chamberlain and asked for his opinion on the matter. He examined Rudiak’s argument and stated it was a good example of confirmation bias. It completely ignored all the other information obtained that supported the photographic analysis. If you had had read my article, you would have known this.

That is mere unfounded assertion and you’re right, it is an opinion, not the result of an analytical analysis of the material. I could also say precisely the same of your own analysis – that is that your report is merely a good example of confirmation bias and it completely ignores much of the evidence in the case. But the mere statement of such unfounded assertions can be dismissed - on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

Let’s see, I have a choice of taking the ramblings of a crashed UFO proponent…

I could equally claim that your statements represent the “ramblings of a UFO debunker” …but exactly how does that progress any rational debate over the actual substance or content of the subject under discussion?

…(who is not an astronomer or expert on the subject of photographic analysis)…

Once again, it is not the messenger, but the [/I]message[/I] that is important. If the analysis (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43) is properly constituted and you can find no fault with it other than that the credentials of the messenger are not what you might like to see, then we can dismiss your concerns by simply referring you back to the analysis itself. Please address yourself to the content of that analysis.

…who did not discuss it with the scientist, who performed the initial research/analysis.

One does not need to “consult” the author of a faulty analysis to note the faults within that analysis.

Rudiak’s research only examined the photographs in a manner that supported the crashed spaceship scenario…

I could say similar things about Chamberlain and Krausse’s (or your own) contentions - that they (and you) have only examined the evidence in a manner that supports their (or your) own preconceived beliefs. What we need to discuss is the evidence and analysis – not the perceived biases of the personalities involved.

…and his work was not peer-reviewed (something you complained about to RoboTimbo concerning his sources).

Actually I noted that RoboT had supplied absolutely NO sources in support of his unfounded assertions (none) and moreover, he has simply refused to supply any sources when asked for them. I then simply noted his claims could therefore be dismissed on the basis of claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

In consideration of your other statement about peer-review; once again it does not take a peer review process to note the faults in another’s argument.

On the other hand, I have the peer-reviewed paper by two accomplished astronomers, who not only analyzed the photographs but collected the visual reports of dozens of witnesses back in 1965 that produced results similar to the photographs.

…and the faults in Chamberlain and Krausse’s paper have been addressed here:

An Analysis of the "Kecksburg UFO" Fireball Trajectory and Possible Error

”Skeptics of the 1965 Kecksburg crash love to cite a 1967 astronomical journal article as "proof" that there was no Kecksburg object, but analysis shows numerous faults in in the paper, including an impossible result…”
(http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43)​

They had no preconceptions at the time of where the fireball went. They simply followed their data in computing their orbit and direction of travel. They also have seismic data from the sonic boom of the fireball to support their conclusions. I think science wins out over the UFO proponent in this case. Come back to me when Rudiak submits his work to a peer reviewed astronomical journal.

Please address yourself to the analysis of the faults (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43) in Chamberlain’s paper. One does not require a peer review process to note the faults in another’s work.

Moreover, you contended:

The fireball over the Great Lakes is supposedly what landed in Kecksburg. However, all the observations and data gathered in the weeks after the event demonstrated it did not even head towards Kecksburg. Those are the real FACTS about Kecksburg.

So if, according to your own admission, a fireball was not the thing that crashed near Kecksburg, my question to you is: What then has your fireball got to do with whatever came down at Kecksburg?

You are having reading problems again.

I could say the same of you – but how precisely would that rationally advance the debate?

This is your article:
Mandak, Joe. “Sci Fi Channel sues NASA, alleges UFO cover-up”
December 9th, 2005

This is the one I cited:
Mandak, Joe. "Researcher featured on Sci Fi Channel wants NASA 'UFO' records" December 8, 2005.

Notice the differences? While the author is the same, there are different titles and dates. BTW, you can find a copy at http://ufoupdateslist.com/2005/dec/m09-011.shtml where it states the following:

“Forestry professor Ray Hicks counted tree rings and determined that trees in the area were damaged in 1965. Hicks, however, said the trees were likely damaged by ice, and then snapped off by the wind. He says his findings don't support Kean's claim that "something physically landed" at the site.”

You originally contended (and I quote): “The research on the matter regarding the "tree samples" turned out to be bogus…”. Now we find that the tree ring data was not (as you claimed) “bogus” at all! The data was legitimate. Hicks merely speculates that ice and wind could have done it…!

Quite simply, the tree ring data shows the trees were damaged in 1965 – and that is consistent with eyewitness reports that something crash landed through them at the time! Nothing more, nothing less.

They did not stonewall anything. NASA said they couldn’t find the files and they still can’t. Is this your proof that NASA was purposefully hiding the files from public view? You need better proof than that.

If NASA was not stonewalling, explain this then:

”Judge Emmet Sullivan’s admonishing of NASA in federal court in 2007 highlights this problem and is well worth reading (see my paper at http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/mufon_4.pdf for excerpts). It was very clear he sympathized with our side, and at various points he wondered out loud if he would be forced to implement the last resort: a FOIA trial, something which has never occurred before. Exasperated, he repeatedly asked the attorneys on both sides what they thought he should do. He declared at one point that “heads should role” at NASA, and he called NASA’s case a “ball of yarn,” stating that he sensed my frustration, because he felt it too.” (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/NASA_lawsuit_conclusion.pdf)​

BTW, the index of the files that has been found and published does not even mention Kecksburg.

As I questioned before (see above comments): Don’t you find this a little odd - especially when they do note lesser incidents?

I find it highly unlikely that something came down and that the evidence presented for this scenario dwindled as one dug further.

“Unlikely” is your opinion - and you follow that opinion with a mere unfounded assertion. Please …can we just stick to the facts and the evidence in the case?

If somebody can produce actual evidence that something did, I will change my conclusions.

So you are simply dismissing with the wave of a hand the eyewitness evidence of (reportedly) hundreds of people and (some but not all of) the media reports in the case? You are of course entitled to do so, but if you do, then we are equally entitled to ask for the grounds on which you base such a dismissal.

Perhaps they did recover a Russian satellite and there was an immense cover-up, which included changing the orbital data.

This statement from you completely ignores the evidence from NASA’s chief expert on the topic - stating that no such thing occurred …unless of course you are proposing a cover-up!

However, that seems very unlikely and is almost as bizarre as the alien spaceship crash involving another massive government cover up.

If (on your own admission) it was not a fireball and not a meteor and not a manmade object, what then? The only recourse you have is to follow the old UFO debunker standby argument that “It can’t be therefore it isn’t” and simply dismiss the eyewitness evidence of (reportedly) hundreds of people. Once again we are entitled to ask for the grounds on which you do so.

Moreover, just because we have something unknown – does not mean we must immediately leap to the ET conclusion. All we can conclude with any confidence is that the case simply defies plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, there is NO evidence that something came down in Kecksburg that evening. You have nothing but stories.

There you go again, dismissing a weight of the eyewitness evidence of (reportedly) hundreds of people out of hand. What are your reasons for such a dismissal? What about that tree ring data?

There is no physical evidence that anything landed.

The tree ring data showed that they were broken in the same time frame as the crash (and in precisely the spot where the witnesses claimed the thing crashed)! Sure, that is not direct evidence, but I have absolutely no doubt that if the tree ring data showed a different time frame - or broken trees were not found in the area where the thing crashed - then you would almost certainly be claiming that such data refuted the “crash” scenario.

It was the fireball that gave the impression to people that something crashed nearby in the direction of the woods.

You cannot have it both ways AstroP. According to your own sources, the alleged fireball went nowhere near Kecksburg!

This is a common problem with people reporting fireballs. They think it landed just a short distance away when in reality it was hundreds of miles distant.

Oh, I see … perhaps if it were merely one or two people I might understand this objection – but (reportedly) hundreds of people – all contending the same thing?

Read the article by Von Del Chamberlain and all the various articles about fireball reports and erroneous estimates.

The flaws in that paper are outlined here: (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43)

The FACT is the fireball went in the direction of Ontario and not towards Kecksburg. Either there was a UFO crash and a fireball at the same time or the witnesses who reported the UFO crashing into the woods were mistaken

…or the trajectory of the “fireball” has simply been miscalculated by Chamberlain…

Once somebody gave the story and it was published (I believe it was Romansky’s that started the “acorn” shape), others just hitched their wagons to it.

That is mere unfounded speculation on your part. Do you have any evidence to support it?

Actually, we have “discovered” that you having problems reading the titles and dates of articles correctly. I got my information correct. You just did not do your homework.

You claimed the tree ring information was bogus – it turns out it was not bogus – it actually confirmed that at the time, the trees were broken – and that supports the contention that something crashing through them could have done that. It does not rule out other causes, but if there was no evidence of tree damage at the place and time, then that would have been a setback for the case for a crash – as it turns out there is observed tree damage from the same place and time !

How about all the witnesses who stated nothing happened? Why are you dismissing their testimony? Doesn’t their testimony carry weight as well? What about all the witness reports in 1965 that showed the fireball went towards Ontario? Why are you so dismissive of them?

Not at all. You have presented none of that “testimonial” evidence. How many “witnesses”? Where were they located? Who were they? What precisely did they say? All you have is a mere unfounded assertion and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You prefer to select on the witness stories from the 1980s and 1990s that support the crashed acorn and not look at the story as recorded in 1965.

Not at all, I am basing my contentions on the testimony of the eyewitnesses who were there at the time and on what was reported at the time.

Nobody claimed any acorn was found in the woods back then. In FACT, the subsequent news accounts stated nothing was found and it was a lot of fuss about nothing.

I am basing my contentions on the testimony of the eyewitnesses who were there at the time and on what was reported at the time.

Bluebook records for the event and press reports at the time (Robert Young wrote about this for his article in the book UFO Invasion). I am sure you can find the appropriate files at Bluebookarchive.org. After further review of what I wrote in my article (I don't have access to my files at this moment), those records indicate only three people were sent. The bottom line is that it was a very small number of individuals and not some large force.

Yet the military deny any involvement whatsoever! There is not a single file discovered under FOIA or released by the military that so much as mentions Kecksburg. Surely if even three (or “a very small number” of) personnel were involved, a file would have been created somewhere… even just for admin purposes.

They came from the 662nd Radar squadron, which was based nearby.

The official story from the military is one of flat out denial of any involvement!

The FACT is there is no nearby army base for all these personnel to come from. Until you can present a source for the hundreds (or are you downscaling it to dozens) of military personnel that were supposedly present, then you really can’t say they existed.

You say the 62nd radar squadron was based nearby… and there are a number of large military bases easily within 3 hours driving of Kecksburg.

I am unaware of any ex-military personnel (other than members of the radar squadron who stated there was no large military contingent present and they found nothing) coming forward stating they were involved.

So yes indeed, some military personnel have come forward to claim involvement – yet the official line remains that of no involvement… interesting.

This all indicates that these stories of a huge flatbed, a military personnel carrier, a crane and dozens/hundreds of soldiers with weapons cordoning off the area and conducting searches are simply not true.

Given that there were a number of large military bases within a few hours of Kecksburg, then a military presence is not able to be ruled out.

It is unlikely that such documentation would be “lost” since there would have been enough in the unit histories and communications to support it.

Yet NASA claims some of the documents were lost! They swore to it in court…

However, what really is missing is any mention in 1965 of all these vehicles and troops arriving in the area. All we have a sensationalized headline that is followed by one comment in the article that the “Army’s” radar squadron personnel were present.

So the media did mention it - in a “sensationalised headline” no less - and (according to you) some personnel were present. Make up your mind AstroP.

Yes but it was just a few personnel from the nearby radar squadron.

But …what were they doing there (?) if according to you, nothing occurred in the area at all!

Your claim was they were there “in force”. IMO, that means there were hundreds. A few technicians and an officer in an official vehicle does not make them there “in force”.

According to the eyewitnesses who were there at the time, there was a significant military force involved.

I asked:
“So where is your evidence that the headlines were “exaggerated”?”

“ARMY ropes off area”!

The army was not present and it was actually AF personnel who were present. There is no evidence they roped off anything in the article. Instead it was a headline designed to get people to read the story. Gatty’s only reference in the article to specific military personnel mentioned these AF personnel as members of the ARMY’s radar squadron demonstrating his failure to get the facts right.

That is all merely your speculative and unfounded opinion. It does not constitute the evidence I asked for to support your claim that the headline was sensationalised (“Army Ropes Off Area” is hardly a sensationalist headline…).

Of course, not mentioned by UFO proponents is the headline in the city edition of the paper, which read:

“Searchers Fail To Find Object"

Finally, Robert Young wrote:

“The next day a Greensburg Tribune-Review editorial summarized its staff's independent investigation: Nothing at all seems to have happened (Dec. 11)" (See his article in “UFO Invasion”)

It seems, based on this, that the headlines reporting something crashing into the woods were “exaggerated”.

No, all it means is that there is a difference in opinion. On the one hand we have (reportedly) hundreds of eyewitnesses, on the other the opinion of a newspaper.

I do however find a couple of things interesting in Young’s article:

”Captain Joseph Dussia, commander of the Pennsylvania State Police Troop A Headquarters at Greensburg, announced the next day that after an all-night search "absolutely nothing had been found." Reports of something being carried from the area referred only to equipment used in the search, Dussia said.” (http://www.textfiles.com/ufo/UFOBBS/1000/1429.ufo)​

So what type of “equipment” is necessary to search through a hilly wooded area?

We also have Young stating that:

” Tribune-Review staff writer David Darby (1990) reported that more than 50 Kecksburg residents sent a petition to the program's producers in an attempt to stop its airing. he paper reported that these nonbelievers included Ed Myers, the Kecksburg fire chief in 1965, who was portrayed by an actor on the program; Jerome and Valerie Miller, whose home was portrayed as the site of a "military command post" during UFO recovery operations; the owners of the land where the saucer was supposed to have landed; and Kecksburg firemen. (http://www.textfiles.com/ufo/UFOBBS/1000/1429.ufo)​

First Young has reported a basic error – He contended that it was Jerome and Valerie Millar’s farm that was the site of the “military command post” – but in fact it was the Hayes farm:

” An hour later, military authorities took over a farmhouse near the ravine owned by Lillian Hayes:

“Well the military was coming in and out of my house all evening. And they were making a lot of phone calls and they were standing around in groups talking. I have no idea who they telephoned… (http://www.unsolved.com/ufo.html)​

Second, how could these alleged petitioners have known the content of the program and what it was likely to conclude about the event before it was aired? That is, how were they know what they were petitioning against? We know Ed Myers was “non-believer” – at least Young provides us with a direct quote from him to that effect - but his quote was taken after the program had aired. Moreover, who were the rest of the people in the alleged petition? Some unnamed firemen? Something doesn’t quite gel in Young’s account of this petition.

BTW, I never stated there were no military personnel present because there were a few and I stated so. I just stated there is no evidence that they were there “in force”, which was your claim.

According to those there at the time there was a substantial military force present. The military denies any involvement at all. You claim is there was some small military involvement. Either, you must therefore support at least some sort of military cover-up scenario or you must question what they were doing there at all (if, as you contend, nothing at all happened).

In reference to Keane, L. (2002) Why Kecksburg? A look at the case in context - Project Moondust and Operation Blue Fly: The retrieval of objects of unknown origin. (http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf)

What does this prove? These are more claims that are not cited and Kean draws her own conclusions without proof.

Keane quotes directly from the official government documents to support her case. What have you got?

Clifford Stone is mentioned and he does not have a very good track record for telling the truth.

So you say, but Keane quotes directly from the official government documents to support her case. What have you got?

Moondust/Blue fly were designed to recover any crashed debris. They were specifically focusing on materials from the Soviet Union (not surprisingly). There is nothing in this “article” by Kean that proves Moondust/Bluefly was involved at Kecksburg.

Nobody is claiming they were. Keane’s article simply provides the background information documenting a history of military cover-ups. Kecksburg seems to fit the established and documented pattern.

I am not sure where you get the idea I stated it was not a fireball/meteor. Perhaps you are confused by the term “meteor” and “meteorite”. A “meteorite” is what’s left of the “meteoroid” that enters the atmosphere and makes it to the ground.

Who cares? They all streak at high speed through the atmosphere following an unwavering trajectory. The Kecksburg object was apparently observed to be slow with variable trajectory.

In this case, there was no “meteorite” at Kecksburg.

Agreed.

What was seen that evening was a fireball, which appeared to some witnesses to have “crashed” into the woods.

Fireball, Meteor, UFO …whatever crashed into the woods, it reamins an unknown.

If you read my collection of articles from 1965 on the event, you will see there were plenty of other communities that claimed the fireball “crashed” or dropped fragments near them as well. Elyria Ohio was full of reports including a fire being started by the meteorite that supposedly landed in a field. See http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/December.htm

(You mean the articles you have collected dating from 1965…)Yes indeed, fragments were reported as coming down (and were reportedly found) in a number of places. So what?

There is absolutely no evidence of a UFO/spacecraft/object crashing into the woods that night other than some stories told decades after the event by a few individuals, which tend to collapse under scrutiny.

That is your opinion. It does not seem to square with the evidence in the case – but no-one can deny you are entitled to your opinion.

In fact one of these “reliable” primary witnesses (Romansky), was a convicted felon and his testimony is refuted by the town’s fire chief at the time Ed Myers (see Bob Young’s article in UFO Invasion).

I see, a ”convicted felon” - so we are back to shooting the messenger then? What precisely has this alleged felony to do with his reliability as a witness? …and as a “convicted felon”, Romansky was then allowed to be a fire-fighter? Interesting.

And Ed Myers? Are you sure he is not one of those witnesses whose testimony you insist must be discounted because it was taken many years after the event? You can’t have it both ways AstroP.

If Kecksburg is your “proof” for the US government covering up UFO evidence then your “proof” is inadequate and you have not established this as a FACT.

I have never claimed that Kecksburg was “proof” of anything. I have however, provided much documentary evidence in the course of discussing this case that establishes as fact that the military is involved in cover-ups when it comes to UFOs. The evidence for that is irrefutable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, I'm still concerned about your deliberate misdirection in the Delphos case where you hid information that would help us come to the conclusion of HOAX. Now I have concerns about your earlier attempts to defend your practice and your utter refusal to even acknowledge it anymore.

It seems you still have problems keeping your stories straight.

One of these:

However, it is not who the messenger is that counts, but the content and quality of the message conveyed.

is not like the other:

(Oh, and RoboT, you really should stay away from sites such as Wikipedia or Encarta – such sites are not peer reviewed and therefore have no acceptable quality control over the information they present)

LOL

This:

There is no doubt that the SciFi channel would have been thinking

appears to be:

mere unfounded assertion

LOL again.

So, back to Venezuela. You appear to have simply given up on it since you haven't done the barest bit of research to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter.

Is there any reason why rationally minded people should be held to such woefullly low standards of evidence?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Don’t you find it just a little odd that there is absolutely no mention of Kecksburg in any of the files? .

No. There was no meteorite found and NASA was not involved. Just because NASA was involved in some meteorite finds/searches does not mean they were involved in ALL meteorite finds/searches. I am surprised they were interested in meteorite falls at all unless they were interested in ones that might involve crashing space debris. Most meteorite investigations were conducted by astronomers and amateur astronomy groups.


I am conducting a big Snip as you try to rationalize that Rudiak’s argument is superior to that performed by the scientist in a peer-reviewed journal. Rudiak’s message ignores everything that was presented by the astronomers in favor of the one trajectory he wants and even his rationalization is incorrect as I noted on my webpage. Yet all the witnesses interviewed in 1965 agreed with the trajectory determined by Krausse and Von Del Chamberlain. If you want to believe what a UFOlogist wrote (which is flawed as I stated on my webpage on the matter and I did provide a link, you just chose to ignore it), then feel free to live in UFO land, where only UFOlogists are right and science is wrong. Meanwhile, I find the work done at the time to be acceptable scientific analysis. Once again, when Rudiak publishes his work in a peer-reviewed journal, you can then present it as a valid argument. Meanwhile, it appears as a very biased opinion. As Von Del Chamberlain told me in his e-mail:

“The paper is a classic case of "proving" what one wants to believe and shows lack of understanding of the fireball event…ALL the data came together -- fireball observations, sonic booms, etc. – to confirm that the event was over SW Ontario and that the meteoric body was headed as we indicated in our paper.”

So if, according to your own admission, a fireball was not the thing that crashed near Kecksburg, my question to you is: What then has your fireball got to do with whatever came down at Kecksburg?

Just because the fireball did not go in the direction of Kecksburg does not mean that the people of Kecksburg could not see the fireball. It was the fireball that inspired the report that something crashed in the woods exactly the same way people in Cleveland and Elyria, stated they thought it crashed in their area. NOTHING crashed in Kecksburg and all the fuss was caused by a few people who thought the fireball had descended into a woods nearby.

You originally contended (and I quote): “The research on the matter regarding the "tree samples" turned out to be bogus…”. Now we find that the tree ring data was not (as you claimed) “bogus” at all! The data was legitimate. Hicks merely speculates that ice and wind could have done it…!

What was BOGUS about the analysis was the interpretation that it was caused by an object crashing through the trees. There is no evidence for a crash, which means the damage was probably caused by something more mundane, like ice and wind, which tends to occur in Pennsylvania.

Quite simply, the tree ring data shows the trees were damaged in 1965 – and that is consistent with eyewitness reports that something crash landed through them at the time! Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, the actual scientist states it is more likely it was caused by wind and ice than something crashing through the trees. If there were damaged trees and something did crash into the woods, where is that evidence from 1965? Where are the photographs of the damaged trees, the gouge in the ground, or other stories in the newspapers? Instead we have no photographs, statements in the papers that nothing was found, and people in 1965 stating it was a fuss about nothing. The only time you have witnesses stating something crashed into the woods is decades later, when these “eyewitnesses” started to materialize.

If NASA was not stonewalling, explain this then:

Not evidence of stonewalling. Evidence of frustration they could not find the files.

“Unlikely” is your opinion - and you follow that opinion with a mere unfounded assertion. Please …can we just stick to the facts and the evidence in the case?

Oh please do. What FACTS do we have?

FACT: A meteor was seen over the Great Lakes region. Witnesses at the time stated it headed in the direction of ONTARIO and not Pennsylvannia.

FACT: Nobody in 1965 ever reported finding anything in the woods.

FACT: The only military involvement documented in 1965 is from a few members of the 662nd radar squadron nearby, who were directed to look into the matter by BlueBook.

FACT: All other exaggerations of acorns, military arrival IN FORCE, threats to civilians, and taking the town over did not get reported until decades later when UFOlogists began to promote their crashed spaceship story.

So you are simply dismissing with the wave of a hand the eyewitness evidence of (reportedly) hundreds of people and (some but not all of) the media reports in the case? You are of course entitled to do so, but if you do, then we are equally entitled to ask for the grounds on which you base such a dismissal.

Because these stories did not surface until UFOlogists started promoting their story. They were not there in 1965. BTW, feel free to list the “hundreds” of eyewitnesses. As best I can tell there may be a few dozen. There are equal numbers stating that there was nothing there.

There you go again, dismissing a weight of the eyewitness evidence of (reportedly) hundreds of people out of hand. What are your reasons for such a dismissal? What about that tree ring data?

Why do you dismiss the conclusion of the scientist who states the tree ring data does not indicate a crashed object? Why do you dismiss the testimony of all those who state nothing crashed? Why do you dismiss all the information from 1965 that stated nothing was found? To me these are all good reasons to dismiss these eyewitnesses who did not materialize until decades after the event.

You cannot have it both ways AstroP. According to your own sources, the alleged fireball went nowhere near Kecksburg!

I can’t understand how hard it is for you to accept the FACT that a fireball can be seen from hundreds of miles away! It does not have to crash in Kecksburg or head towards Kecksburg. All it has to do is be visible from Kecksburg.

Oh, I see … perhaps if it were merely one or two people I might understand this objection – but (reportedly) hundreds of people – all contending the same thing?

Sigh…..list the “hundreds of people” who saw the “same thing”. Meanwhile, I will put greater faith in the scientists who interviewed the witnesses who saw it completely different than your unidentified witnesses who did not make any reports until decades later.

Big snip as you try again to promote Rudiak’s biased and un-peer reviewed analysis as a counter argument with the peer-reviewed paper by the two accomplished scientists who interviewed witnesses to the event and determined the trajectory. If you feel that you have a valid argument, contact Dr. Von del Chamberlain and present your case to him. Better yet, as a scientist, why don’t you collaborate with Rudiak to publish his paper in an astronomical journal. Your (and Rudiak’s) failure to do so means you are not that confident with the analysis. Let us know how this all works out.

Not at all, I am basing my contentions on the testimony of the eyewitnesses who were there at the time and on what was reported at the time.

Feel free to present your evidence from 1965 that states and acorn-like object crashed into the woods. There isn’t any from 1965. Instead, it was reported that nothing was found. The testimony from 1965 does not support anything had actually crashed into the woods. You can repeat this statement over and over but it does not make it true.

Yet the military deny any involvement whatsoever! There is not a single file discovered under FOIA or released by the military that so much as mentions Kecksburg. Surely if even three (or “a very small number” of) personnel were involved, a file would have been created somewhere… even just for admin purposes.

The bluebook files state that members of the 662nd radar squadron were sent and they reported back that nothing was found. I am not sure where you got the idea that the military denied they were sent and that there were no records of these men being sent.

The official story from the military is one of flat out denial of any involvement!

Feel free to present this statement. They may have denied the military involvement described by the witnesses but I doubt they denied that the 662nd was present.

You say the 62nd radar squadron was based nearby… and there are a number of large military bases easily within 3 hours driving of Kecksburg.

List them. However, you have to look at 3 hours driving time as really unrealistic value. In order to assemble the large group of people and material described in the story told by UFOlogists, would require a lot more than 3 hours.
First of all, you don’t’ drive a personnel carrier on roads. It involves a huge vehicle to transport it over the roads. You have to put the carrier on the vehicle and get it there. It takes some time to do this. Probably an hour minimum but that is just a guess. Additionally, it was after work hours on a Thursday. Those on duty were there for maintaining base functions and could not be sent out. This means you have to use non-duty personnel. The rest of the men were probably out on pass or had gone home to their families. You need to issue a recall to get the men there. Based on my naval experience, that takes a couple of hours (I had to assemble an engineering department on the fly one summer to start up the reactor and move the ship in 12 hours). For a large force, it would take at least this long to assemble the equipment and troops. They then would have to brief the personnel as to where they needed to go and issue their personnel equipment (weapons and ammo). Next they have to drive there over congested roads and through civilian traffic.
As you can see this is going to take many hours and not just three. It is unrealistic unless you have the units standing by.
Not a word of this appears in any of the papers. There is not one iota of evidence from 1965 that indicates the military, other than the few men from the 662nd radar squadron stationed in Oakdale, PA, was ever involved in any recovery at Kecksburg.

So the media did mention it - in a “sensationalised headline” no less - and (according to you) some personnel were present. Make up your mind AstroP.

But it was inaccurate. They were not from the Army as the headline claimed. The headline “sensationalized” that the Army roped off the area but it was really the state police and the Army had no involvement. The AF did send people but all they did was conduct a search with the fire department/police to see if they could find anything. Nothing was found.

But …what were they doing there (?) if according to you, nothing occurred in the area at all!

Because you have not been following the story or have read the materials other than what you can find at your beloved UFO sites. The Bluebook records mention reports of a UFO over the great lakes region. When the Kecksburg media (and apparently the Pittsburgh TV stations picked up on it) mistakenly reported something had crashed in the woods, Bluebook took the report as possibly being accurate, sent personnel from the nearest AFB (in this case – Oakdale) to look into the matter.

According to the eyewitnesses who were there at the time, there was a significant military force involved.

Were they really there? How many can you prove as to being actually there? Additionally, we have no evidence that a “significant” military force was involved. That gives reason to question the stories and the witnesses that were told decades after the event.

(“Army Ropes Off Area” is hardly a sensationalist headline…).

It is if they did not do it. There is no evidence in that article that the army did any such thing. All they report is a few members of the 662nd radar squadron showed up and that, supposedly, the army engineers were going to show up. No source is given as to that report. In fact, the article pretty much sources Gatty for everything in it. He is just repeating rumors and stories he heard being discussed. There was nothing official ever stated by the USAF personnel present until they came back to their base and reported they found nothing.

So what type of “equipment” is necessary to search through a hilly wooded area?

Ask the fire department. They were involved. I am sure they had a few vehicles present.

First Young has reported a basic error – He contended that it was Jerome and Valerie Millar’s farm that was the site of the “military command post” – but in fact it was the Hayes farm:

I will have to ask Bob to clarify this but I believe he stated that the actual house and land where the UFO supposedly crashed was the Millar farm and not where the Hayes lived. The Millar’s refused to allow them to film on their land so “Unsolved mysteries” moved to the Hayes home.

According to those there at the time there was a substantial military force present. The military denies any involvement at all. You claim is there was some small military involvement. Either, you must therefore support at least some sort of military cover-up scenario or you must question what they were doing there at all (if, as you contend, nothing at all happened).

Prove they were present there. Why wasn’t the massive military presence reported and photographed in 1965? Why are their stories told decades later different than what was reported in 1965?

Nobody is claiming they were. Keane’s article simply provides the background information documenting a history of military cover-ups. Kecksburg seems to fit the established and documented pattern.

Then why bring it up if they were not involved. It is your claim that the military is involved in UFO cover-ups and Kecksburg is an example of this. However, you now are trying to associate UFO cover-ups with efforts by the government to retrieve crashed space hardware from the Soviet Union. The CIA/AF was involved in covering up crashes of U-2s and SR-71s. Does that prove they were covering up crashes of UFOs? No, it does not. This is all a red herring. Let me know when you have real documents stating there was a cover-up at Kecksburg.

Who cares? They all streak at high speed through the atmosphere following an unwavering trajectory. The Kecksburg object was apparently observed to be slow with variable trajectory.

Feel free to provide the testimony that was told in 1965 that supports that claim (variable trajectory). Nobody that I am aware of made that kind of comment in the 1965 accounts.

Fireball, Meteor, UFO …whatever crashed into the woods, it reamins an unknown.

Meteors and Fireballs can NOT crash. They are the effect of the meteoroid that goes through the atmosphere. Only a METEORITE can crash on earth. Get the terminology straight. There is no evidence from 1965 that supports the claim that something was found in the woods. There are only reports in 1965 from people who thought something crashed. These are very similar to the reports made all over the Great Lakes, whre people also thought the fireball “crashed” nearby. Investigations in all of the locations revealed that nothing extraterrestrial or launched from earth was found.

I see, a ”convicted felon” - so we are back to shooting the messenger then? What precisely has this alleged felony to do with his reliability as a witness? …and as a “convicted felon”, Romansky was then allowed to be a fire-fighter? Interesting.

Exactly how reliable can one consider Romansky if he was dishonest enough to rob a bank? He was a convicted felon in 1966 and not 1965 that is why he could have been a firefighter in 1965.

And Ed Myers? Are you sure he is not one of those witnesses whose testimony you insist must be discounted because it was taken many years after the event? You can’t have it both ways AstroP.

My point of this is you have to accept that somebody is not telling the truth. If half say one thing and the other half say it is not true, then you are left with going back to what was stated in 1965 until you can provide evidence that one side is being accurate. Right now the evidence from 1965 supports the claim that nothing crashed. It is up to you to provide evidence that something did land and it was carted away. You have yet to do this.

I have never claimed that Kecksburg was “proof” of anything. I have however, provided much documentary evidence in the course of discussing this case that establishes as fact that the military is involved in cover-ups when it comes to UFOs. The evidence for that is irrefutable.

Actually you picked this case out specifically to establish the military cover-up CLAIM, which is NOT a fact contrary to what you have stated. You have yet to prove this claim with any convincing evidence and establish it as a FACT. For somebody who has spent months playing nitpick with ECREE, you see to have a problem with simple definitions and comprehension.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Not to stretch this out much further but I want to make sure that I provide all the information I have. I did contact Bob Young and he said it has been sometime since he went over the details. He would have to look at his notes and the article again to clarify anything.
However, in our exchange on the subject today, he mentioned several things about the Hayes that are important. The Hayes did not own the home that was, according to their story, turned into a "command post" . It was owned by a man named Hilland, who owned the land and the farm. Apparently, there was a house on the farm that Hilland rented out. According to Young, Hilland told him the house did not even have a phone in 1965 (Bob tried to confirm this but could not discover exactly when a phone line was installed). If this is true, then it would make a poor command post as nobody could communicate with them via land line.
Bob also told me the main search area that night was on the Millar farm but UFOlogists put the search area at the Kovacina farm to the west. The Hilland farm, where the Hayes were located is to the south of this area. He stated the Millar's state nothing was found and there was no military takeover. Hilland denied any command post was set up in the home the Hayes were renting from him.
Bob finally added that the only "command post" was the state police who set up on the road on the Millar's farm (as well as the local fire department, who had trucks at several locations around the ravine). This is probably what he meant in his article (he said he has to go back and look at it again and will get back to me). They relayed information to the state police barracks about the search.
As best I can tell, the Millars, Hillands, and Kovacinas all deny that anything was found or pulled out of the ravines (there are two ravines). They owned the land and they certainly would be aware of any damage to their properties or if something large was in them. I guess their testimony is worthless because they were probably influenced by the military or paid off for their silence. Like the fireball trajectory, it is far easier to believe the more exotic stories than the mundane ones.

 

[Rramjet]

There was no meteorite found and NASA was not involved.

Just because no meteorite was found does not mean NASA was not involved (and are you suggesting your “fireball” was not a meteorite? Oh, wait, if it does not hit the ground it is a meteor …right?).

Just because NASA was involved in some meteorite finds/searches does not mean they were involved in ALL meteorite finds/searches.

This one was the biggest and most widely reported events of all of them. Under FOIA court order we discover that NASA kept files on much lesser events – yet they failed to even mention the biggest and most controversial of them?

I am surprised they were interested in meteorite falls at all unless they were interested in ones that might involve crashing space debris.

So …it is a meteorite now...? But of course they were interested in potential “space debris”.

Most meteorite investigations were conducted by astronomers and amateur astronomy groups.

The argument is about whether NASA would have kept a file on the Kecksburg incident – not whether they investigated or not.

I am conducting a big Snip as you try to rationalize that Rudiak’s argument is superior to that performed by the scientist in a peer-reviewed journal.

The faults in Chamberlain and Krausse’s paper are noted here (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43). That you are unwilling to address the content of that analysis and instead are attempting to rationalise it away, is telling.

Rudiak’s message ignores everything that was presented by the astronomers in favor of the one trajectory he wants and even his rationalization is incorrect as I noted on my webpage.

The mere statement of such unfounded assertions does not make them true. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Yet all the witnesses interviewed in 1965 agreed with the trajectory determined by Krausse and Von Del Chamberlain.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

”In March 1966, UFO researcher Ivan Sanderson compiled a detailed account from various eyewitnesses, and soon realized that there was more to this story than that of a simple meteorite.

His findings indicated that the object showed a clear trajectory, moving from north-west to south-east. Its total visible journey lasted no more than 6 minutes, which indicated a speed far too slow for a meteor. Sanderson calculated a speed of only around 1,000 mph.

Not all the eyewitnesses were located on the ground at the time of the sighting, there were also several pilots…” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1307.htm)​

If you want to believe what a UFOlogist wrote…

So you are able to refute Rudiak’s argument against Chamberlain and Krausse then?

(which is flawed as I stated on my webpage on the matter and I did provide a link, you just chose to ignore it)…

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

…then feel free to live in UFO land, where only UFOlogists are right and science is wrong.

I could say the same about your argument – that is, feel free to live in UFO debunker land, where only UFO debunkers are right and science is wrong – but how exactly do such emotional appeals rationally advance the debate?

Meanwhile, I find the work done at the time to be acceptable scientific analysis.

So you accept Sanderson then (see above)? But then of course that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I am equally entitled to enquire about the basis of that opinion in the face of contradictory evidence.

Once again, when Rudiak publishes his work in a peer-reviewed journal, you can then present it as a valid argument.

It does not take a peer review process to note the flaws in another’s argument – here for example (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43).

Meanwhile, it appears as a very biased opinion.

That is youropinion and we are entitled to enquire on what grounds you base that opinion.

As Von Del Chamberlain told me in his e-mail:

“The paper is a classic case of "proving" what one wants to believe and shows lack of understanding of the fireball event…ALL the data came together -- fireball observations, sonic booms, etc. – to confirm that the event was over SW Ontario and that the meteoric body was headed as we indicated in our paper.”

That is his opinion and the faults in that opinion have been noted here (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43).

Just because the fireball did not go in the direction of Kecksburg does not mean that the people of Kecksburg could not see the fireball.

The I reject premise of that statement (Sanderson and also Rudiak). Something crash landed outside Kecksburg. What it was we simply don’t know.

It was the fireball that inspired the report that something crashed in the woods exactly the same way people in Cleveland and Elyria, stated they thought it crashed in their area.

That is a false contention. The people in those areas claimed that pieces of it came down in their areas – not the whole thing.

NOTHING crashed in Kecksburg and all the fuss was caused by a few people who thought the fireball had descended into a woods nearby.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, because that opinion does not seem to square with the evidence in the case, I am inclined to reject it.

What was BOGUS about the analysis was the interpretation that it was caused by an object crashing through the trees. There is no evidence for a crash, which means the damage was probably caused by something more mundane, like ice and wind, which tends to occur in Pennsylvania.

You are simply misunderstanding a fundamental basis of science and logic. Follow carefully:

1. People claim something crash landed into a wooded ravine in 1965.
2. Subsequent (years later) analysis of the trees in that area show that some were damaged in 1965 (the tree ring data showed the date).
3. This is consistent with the claims that something crash landed in the area.
4. If the trees were found to have suffered no damage in 1965, then that would suggest that nothing crashed through them in 1965.
5. However, the tree ring data is also consistent with the claim that perhaps an ice windstorm damaged the trees (although the coincidence of the specific area and time is remarkable).
6. Therefore we cannot say that the tree ring data is proof of a crash – only that it is consistent with the claim.

Yet, the actual scientist states it is more likely it was caused by wind and ice than something crashing through the trees.

The “actual” scientist? But whatever, that is mere speculation. Once again, the tree ring analysis is consistent with the “wind and ice” hypothesis, but equally it is not proof of the hypothesis – and the data certainly does not distinguish likelihoods between alternatives – unless of course you might consider the damage at the specific place and time to be remarkably coincidental…

If there were damaged trees and something did crash into the woods, where is that evidence from 1965?

The argument is that the military became involved and hauled away whatever crash landed. In other words they removed the evidence and all we have left is the eyewitness testimony.

Where are the photographs of the damaged trees, the gouge in the ground, or other stories in the newspapers?

The argument is that the military came in, collected the object and generally cleaned up after themselves as they left. What would you expect a photograph to then show?
A wooded area at night… what editor would publish a photo of trees at night when he could fill the space more effectively with the story of the incident?

The reporters came, the story was filed, they moved on. That’s what they do.

Instead we have no photographs, statements in the papers that nothing was found, and people in 1965 stating it was a fuss about nothing. The only time you have witnesses stating something crashed into the woods is decades later, when these “eyewitnesses” started to materialize.

The papers never interviewed the witnesses at the time… they only reported the “official line”.

Oh, and “people in 1965 stating it was a fuss about nothing” – you have the quotes I suppose?

Not evidence of stonewalling. Evidence of frustration they could not find the files.

No, NASA refused to hand over the requested files they did have - and only did so when at last threatened with a lawsuit for breach of FOIA regulation by the presiding judge in the case.

FACT: A meteor was seen over the Great Lakes region. Witnesses at the time stated it headed in the direction of ONTARIO and not Pennsylvannia.

Ah. So now the eyewitness evidence that supports your case is reliable enough to count as “FACT”, but the eyewitness evidence that contradicts your case is faulty?

FACT: Nobody in 1965 ever reported finding anything in the woods.

” In an old newsreel film, an interviewer asked a very young
Kecksburg resident: 'What did it look like?' The boy answered: 'A star on fire.' A street in the small farming town of Kecksburg was named METEOR Street because of this encounter with the object. People who were able to get a good look at it said that it was acorn-shaped. An acorn monument was erected in the town and stands to this day.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1297.htm)​

” Witnesses described a "fireball" in the evening sky, and a metallic, acorn-shaped object about 12 to 15 feet high and 8 to 12 feet in diameter that landed in the woods, according to media accounts in the Tribune-Review of Greensburg and other outlets at the time.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1312.htm)​

You also brought up Ed Myers, the “disbeliever”:

” For years, retiree Robert Bitner, former Kecksburg fire chief, a man who believes that something noteworthy fell from the sky, hasn't spoken with his brother-in-law. He maintains only a nodding acquaintance with neighbor and fellow ex-fire chief Ed Myers. It's a cold war born of the UFO dispute.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1306.htm)​

FACT: The only military involvement documented in 1965 is from a few members of the 662nd radar squadron nearby, who were directed to look into the matter by BlueBook.

So there was a military presence… The military denies it.

”There were all kind of military people," said Robert Gatty, now publishing a trade magazine in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, then a reporter with the Tribune-Review in Greensburg. "I couldn't get past them." (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1306.htm)​

FACT: All other exaggerations of acorns, military arrival IN FORCE, threats to civilians, and taking the town over did not get reported until decades later when UFOlogists began to promote their crashed spaceship story.

No, that is your opinion and it does not square with the facts:

”In March 1966, UFO researcher Ivan Sanderson compiled a detailed account from various eyewitnesses, and soon realized that there was more to this story than that of a simple meteorite.

His findings indicated that the object showed a clear trajectory, moving from north-west to south-east. Its total visible journey lasted no more than 6 minutes, which indicated a speed far too slow for a meteor. Sanderson calculated a speed of only around 1,000 mph.

Not all the eyewitnesses were located on the ground at the time of the sighting, there were also several pilots…” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1307.htm)​

In March 1966 - just three months after the event!

And this from a witness at the time:

” John Murphy, news director of the Greensburg radio station WHJB, was one of the first people on the scene. Murphy knew the fire marshal well, but when he attempted to get information from him as to what he had seen in the woods, received the reply, "I'm not sure. You better get your information from the army." Murphy phone the state police barracks at Greensburg, and was informed by the commanding officer there that personnel from the 662nd Radar Squadron, out of the Oakdale Army Support Facility were expected to arrive and conduct a briefing. Surprisingly, he invited Murphy to attend.

At the barracks Murphy found both Army and Air Force personnel present, and was issued an official denial: "The Pennsylvania State Police have made a thorough investigation of the woods. We are convinced there is nothing whatsoever in the woods." Despite this, the military-state police contingent departed for those woods where "nothing whatsoever" occurred, taking Murphy with them. When they got there, a whole bunch of military personnel. . in uniform, carrying equipment had arrived. The woods were declared off-limits and was under quarantine. By the time they got back down to the fire hall, there was wall to wall military everywhere: cars, jeeps, trucks, there was military personnel carrying things in. The guys at the door had riffles and they were loaded.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1315.htm)​

Because these stories did not surface until UFOlogists started promoting their story.

Well, that’s just not true.

Why do you dismiss the conclusion of the scientist who states the tree ring data does not indicate a crashed object?

I don’t. He did not. He hypothesised that the trees could have been broken by ice and wind.

Why do you dismiss the testimony of all those who state nothing crashed?

I don’t. I just weight the evidence for and against. Taking account of ALL the evidence – not just the part (as you seem to do) that supports my contentions.

Why do you dismiss all the information from 1965 that stated nothing was found?

What “all”? We only have the official line at the time stating that nothing was found. All the eyewitnesses at the time said something was there.

To me these are all good reasons to dismiss these eyewitnesses who did not materialize until decades after the event.

What “good reasons”. All you have done is asked why I dismissed some of the evidence. Those questions from you to me do not constitute a reason for your beliefs surely – or are you contending that they do?

I can’t understand how hard it is for you to accept the FACT that a fireball can be seen from hundreds of miles away!

Have I ever stated otherwise? You build these strawman arguments and present them in the form of a question as if the fact that they are presented as a question will somehow confer veracity on them. You might as well have simply made the unfounded assertion straight up for all the difference it would have made.

It does not have to crash in Kecksburg or head towards Kecksburg. All it has to do is be visible from Kecksburg.

The eyewitnesses state it crashed just outside Kecksburg. On what grounds do you dismiss their testimony while accepting testimony only from eyewitnesses that support your version?

Sigh…..list the “hundreds of people” who saw the “same thing”.

I stated “reportedly” hundreds – remember the traffic jam of people flocking to the area to see what happened?

Meanwhile, I will put greater faith in the scientists who interviewed the witnesses who saw it completely different than your unidentified witnesses who did not make any reports until decades later.

Read the documents in the links I provided when I introduced the case (many of them can be found listed also here: http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Kecksburg.htm). Many of the witnesses are certainly identified in those documents.

The faults in the analysis of Chamberlain and Krausse are outlined here (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43). Why do you refuse to address yourself to the substance of that analysis?

The testimony from 1965 does not support anything had actually crashed into the woods. You can repeat this statement over and over but it does not make it true.

I stated:
“You say the 62nd radar squadron was based nearby… and there are a number of large military bases easily within 3 hours driving of Kecksburg.”

List them.

Wright-Patterson
ISC Cleveland
Carlisle
Mechanicsburg…

Oh… look …Wright Patterson … where have I heard that name before?

However, you have to look at 3 hours driving time as really unrealistic value.

In your opinion…

I stated:
“ So the media did mention it - in a “sensationalised headline” no less - and (according to you) some personnel were present. Make up your mind AstroP.”

But it was inaccurate. They were not from the Army as the headline claimed. The headline “sensationalized” that the Army roped off the area but it was really the state police and the Army had no involvement. The AF did send people but all they did was conduct a search with the fire department/police to see if they could find anything. Nothing was found.

The headline “Army ropes off area” is hardly a sensationalised headline in anyone’s language (except it seems yours). But it is interesting that you now admit that the area was “roped off”. The official line was that nothing was found. The eyewitnesses tell a different story.

Because you have not been following the story or have read the materials other than what you can find at your beloved UFO sites

I could say the same of you – that you have not been following the story – but how does that rationally advance the debate? And I am also sure that I pointed out to you that it is the content and quality of the message that is important – not who the messenger is.

Bluebook took the report as possibly being accurate, sent personnel from the nearest AFB (in this case – Oakdale) to look into the matter.

The nearest? You see, it is demonstrably false statements like this that make us suspicious of other things you might contend.

In fact, the article pretty much sources Gatty for everything in it.

Gatty was the reporter for the Tribune-Review who covered the incident. See Gatty’s statement here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1815.htm).

(then the press of a buzzer sounds - and the host indicates - the answer is…) Who was John Murphy (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1315.htm)?

Why wasn’t the massive military presence reported and photographed in 1965?

Many major stories were not photographed in that era. It was also at night remember in a dark wooded area…

Why are their stories told decades later different than what was reported in 1965?

That is a mere unfounded assertion. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It is your claim that the military is involved in UFO cover-ups and Kecksburg is an example of this. However, you now are trying to associate UFO cover-ups with efforts by the government to retrieve crashed space hardware from the Soviet Union. The CIA/AF was involved in covering up crashes of U-2s and SR-71s. Does that prove they were covering up crashes of UFOs? No, it does not. This is all a red herring. Let me know when you have real documents stating there was a cover-up at Kecksburg.

I was merely noting that the military has the capacity and the historical track record of cover-ups – and not just in the cases you mention (http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf). My point being that UFO debunkers like to ridicule any suggestion of potential military cover-ups as coming from some sort of lunatic conspiracy theory fringe groups – however, the evidence is clear – the military has been involved in many, many cover-ups. Given the military’s track record, a cover-up in cases like Kecksburg is not then an unreasonable hypothesis.

Feel free to provide the testimony that was told in 1965 that supports that claim (variable trajectory). Nobody that I am aware of made that kind of comment in the 1965 accounts.

This seems to be a sticking point between us. You want all the information in the case for my side of the argument to be strictly limited to the direct statements of witnesses on the ground at the time – yet on your side of the ledger you admit free range evidence from any point in time. On what basis do you limit the evidence on my side, but do not apply those same limits to your own side?

Meteors and Fireballs can NOT crash. They are the effect of the meteoroid that goes through the atmosphere. Only a METEORITE can crash on earth. Get the terminology straight.

I already asked: So what? A meteor or fireball becomes a meteorite once it hits the earth. A rose by any other name…

Exactly how reliable can one consider Romansky if he was dishonest enough to rob a bank? He was a convicted felon in 1966 and not 1965 that is why he could have been a firefighter in 1965.

I already asked what had the felony got to do with his reliability as a witness. Nothing at all it seems.

My point of this is you have to accept that somebody is not telling the truth.

You see, this is just where you and I differ. Everyone could be telling the truth. All the witnesses who saw something happen told the truth to the best of their knowledge. Those who did not see it don’t believe them and state as much to anyone who asks. There is no need for anyone to be telling anything other than the truth as they see it.

But then there is the military. They have a track record of not being truthful in such cases (eg; http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf). So do we trust them? On the weight of evidence it would seem prudent not to trust them. Perhaps though AstroP you can supply us a reason why we should trust them?

Right now the evidence from 1965 supports the claim that nothing crashed.

That is your opinion. There is evidence to suggest otherwise.

It is up to you to provide evidence that something did land and it was carted away. You have yet to do this.

There is the eyewitness evidence - the evidence of the people who were on the scene at the time. We are entitled to ask on what grounds you dismiss that evidence.

Chamberlain and Krausse’s assessment has been repudiated (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43) and there is also Ivan Sanderson, who in March 1966 interviewed a number of witnesses and came to a different conclusion (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1307.htm). The alleged petition is questionable (How could the petitioners have known what was in the TV show before it was aired and how could the reporter of the petition, Bob Young, get such a basic fact of the show wrong in stating that the military command post was in the Millar house when the show actually contended it was in the Hayes house). Then there is Ed Myers …was he even there? And that’s all you have. Not much really.

Not to stretch this out much further but I want to make sure that I provide all the information I have. I did contact Bob Young and he said it has been sometime since he went over the details. He would have to look at his notes and the article again to clarify anything.
However, in our exchange on the subject today, he mentioned several things about the Hayes that are important. The Hayes did not own the home that was, according to their story, turned into a "command post" . It was owned by a man named Hilland, who owned the land and the farm. Apparently, there was a house on the farm that Hilland rented out

So what? Renting, owning, whatever, that is where they were at the time and that is where the Unsolved Mysteries show stated the military command post was. Bob Young reported that the show stated it was at the Millar’s place and made much of the fact that the Millar’s ridiculed the idea. Sure they would if it was not there in the first place.

According to Young, Hilland told him the house did not even have a phone in 1965 (Bob tried to confirm this but could not discover exactly when a phone line was installed). If this is true, then it would make a poor command post as nobody could communicate with them via land line.

So that is mere unfounded speculation. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Bob also told me the main search area that night was on the Millar farm but UFOlogists put the search area at the Kovacina farm to the west. The Hilland farm, where the Hayes were located is to the south of this area.

Incorrect. “The object appeared to have crashed a half-mile from the Kalp’s home” (http://www.unsolved.com/ufo.html)

He stated the Millar's state nothing was found and there was no military takeover.

That is what they believe and they are entitled to believe what they want… what did they witness?

Hilland denied any command post was set up in the home the Hayes were renting from him.

Oh, so here was there that night?

Bob finally added that the only "command post" was the state police who set up on the road on the Millar's farm (as well as the local fire department, who had trucks at several locations around the ravine). This is probably what he meant in his article (he said he has to go back and look at it again and will get back to me). They relayed information to the state police barracks about the search.

Ah, so the Millar’s did witness a police command post! What did they think it was there for? If the police had a command post there, there would be no reason for the military to duplicate that effort in that same location. The Millars would not then have then seen any military. Besides how would they know “nothing was found”?

As best I can tell, the Millars, Hillands, and Kovacinas all deny that anything was found or pulled out of the ravines (there are two ravines).

The Millars were on the spot and saw only a police command post. The Hillands were not there. Who were the Kovacinas and what precisely did they witness and say?

They owned the land and they certainly would be aware of any damage to their properties or if something large was in them.

What damage? To the trees in a wooded ravine and possibly some disturbance on the ground under the trees?

I guess their testimony is worthless because they were probably influenced by the military or paid off for their silence.

Not at all. The Millars were there and witnessed a police command post outside their property. But that is all they can reasonable testify to – anything else by them is mere speculation. The Hillands were not even there, so whatever they say is mere speculation. As for the Kovacinas - what precisely did they witness and say about it all (oh …and when did they say it)?

Like the fireball trajectory, it is far easier to believe the more exotic stories than the mundane ones.

Exotic stories? Something crashed into a wooded ravine outside Kecksburg. Numerous eyewitnesses testify to that fact. You seem to be confusing the stories attributing it to ET with the actual facts on the ground.

 

[Astrophotographer]

This is getting tiring and, unlike Rramjet, I do have a life elsewhere. However, I will try and snip off what I can and make this as brief as possible.

This one was the biggest and most widely reported events of all of them. Under FOIA court order we discover that NASA kept files on much lesser events – yet they failed to even mention the biggest and most controversial of them?

Really??? How controversial was it in 1965 and was it the “biggest” fireball? I think I can provide you with many bigger and brighter fireballs than this one. Additionally, why would NASA be interested in something scientists had already determined went into Canada? Would NASA have the right to go into Canada?

The faults in Chamberlain and Krausse’s paper are noted here (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43). That you are unwilling to address the content of that analysis and instead are attempting to rationalise it away, is telling.

Well, I guess I will have to reprint everything that is at my link since you are not interested in going there (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/ScienceFiction.htm). Rudiak’s main arguments are:
1.That there is no error analysis and that a “potential” 0.7 degree error in computing the azimuth for the meteors endpoint could shift the computed path towards Kecksburg. However, Rudiak only lists it as “potential for error” but does not list any definitive measurement that shows there was an error contrary to what you claim! He just shows how an error can alter the trajectory towards Kecksburg.Rudiak’s error analysis of a POTENTIAL 0.7 degree error is interesting in that he wants only one point to shift 0.7 degrees. He provides no proof there is a 0.7 degree error, he just assumes there may be one. One can easily state the error would apply to both points and then the meteor goes in another direction.
2.Chamberlain and Krause failed to notice or, apparently, lied about the "drift" caused by the winds between the Wright and Champine photographs. This drift could be the source of errors in their computations that would lead to a faulty solution. Chamberlain and Krause DID note the drift of the meteor train and if you overlay the two images of the train on top of each other the two key points of A and B (which were the only ones used for triangulation) are in the same location. There is no significant drift on those two points. Any other drifting along the path does not affect the triangulation calculations. This invalidates Rudiak’s argument on this point.
3.That the apparent angular size of the dust train was not uniform across the length of the trail indicating the debris trail pointed away from the photographers and towards Kecksburg. This is based on what he wants to see. If you look at various fireball debris trails of daylight fireballs, you will discover they are not uniform even when heading towards the observer (see Tagish lake photograph at my link above). Many factors affect the creation of a debris trail of this kind. It is not uniform along its length like an airplane contrail. Rudiak ignores all of this.

Most important to understand again is that Rudiak’s article is NOT peer-reviewed. I have no evidence that Rudiak is an expert on fireballs or he has ever attempted to plot a fireball path before. Therefore, his OPINION, which is flawed for the reasons I listed is completely invalid.

We then have you promoting Ivan Sanderson’s version of the path, which, again, is plotted by a non-expert in a non-peer reviewed manner, who ignores all the data collected by scientists as well as the testimony of the witnesses collected by those actually investigating the fireball.

In order to make sure you understand why this is all wishful thinking, I present further information concerning analysis of the fireball done by astronomers in 1965-66:
In April, 1966, Dr. Douglas wrote the article, "The fireball of December 9, 1965, Essex County, Ontario" and it was presented in the “Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Associate Committee on Meteorites”. He wrote the following:
“On-the-spot interviews of some seventy observers (now close to 100) were made by Mr. Henry Lee, President of the Windsor Centre of the RASC, and the writer during part of January. Reduction of this sighting data confirmed the general ground position of the end-point as was determined from the photographs by Mr. Chamberlain. Contacts with eyewitnesses were obtained through requests in a daily and four weekly newspapers, radio station CJSP, Leamington, and through area high schools.”
Again, we have scientists actually interviewing witnesses and collecting reports in 1965-6 and submitting the analysis of these reports in a scientific venue. Their analysis proves that Rudiak and Sanderson are wrong! When you can present a peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates the meteor went towards Kecksburg, you have a valid argument against their work. Until then, it is just smoke and mirrors. It can not be used as a valid argument to rebut the research conducted in 1965 by VDC and Krausse.

The I reject premise of that statement (Sanderson and also Rudiak). Something crash landed outside Kecksburg. What it was we simply don’t know.

FACT: The search of the woods near Kecksburg in 1965 stated nothing was found. The members of the 662nd radar squadron reported this, the state police stated this, the papers reported it, and this was the conclusion of the Greensburg-Tribune staff. Why would all these people say nothing was found, if something was indeed there?

Sanderson and Rudiak’s analysis is flawed. It has not been submitted for peer review and can not be used for proof of anything. Your argument is invalid.

That is a false contention. The people in those areas claimed that pieces of it came down in their areas – not the whole thing.

Read them again. They all talk about a fireball descending nearby. It was not a fragmentation event (there are no multiple debris trails in the photographs), so they were describing the fireball descending nearby.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, because that opinion does not seem to square with the evidence in the case, I am inclined to reject it.

FACT: Nobody in any of the 1965 sources reported seeing or finding any objects at Kecksburg.

You are simply misunderstanding a fundamental basis of science and logic. Follow carefully:

You are simply ignoring the FACT that nobody in the 1965 sources reported seeing or finding any objects crashed into the ravine. ALL of your evidence to support your conclusion comes from testimony made decades later. It is false logic.

The “actual” scientist? But whatever, that is mere speculation. Once again, the tree ring analysis is consistent with the “wind and ice” hypothesis, but equally it is not proof of the hypothesis – and the data certainly does not distinguish likelihoods between alternatives – unless of course you might consider the damage at the specific place and time to be remarkably coincidental…

Occam’s razor. There is no indication that anything crashed. No gouge, no object, and no witnesses stating such in 1965 sources. Therefore, it is far more likely it was wind or ice damage, which is not unusual for Pennsylvania.

The argument is that the military came in, collected the object and generally cleaned up after themselves as they left. What would you expect a photograph to then show?
A wooded area at night… what editor would publish a photo of trees at night when he could fill the space more effectively with the story of the incident?

What would sell papers are photographs of the army personnel carrier and equipment as well as all those armed guards that were lined up roping off the area.
What about after the event? If there were a gouge in the ravine, a photograph of it would do. How about all those damaged trees showing the trajectory of the object or was it just one tree that got damaged? What a strange crash when only one tree is damaged….

I assume by this statement, you are implying that they erased all the evidence that anything ever happened. This includes all the vehicle tracks created by their work. The AF/CIA could not do it with an A-12 crash in Utah and that took weeks in an open isolated area during the day. How were a bunch of army grunts able to do it in a few hours in the middle of the night? You might as well state they had a magic wand that did this. Maybe it is the same magic wand used to teleport the army contingent from their base without anybody noticing.

The papers never interviewed the witnesses at the time… they only reported the “official line”.

Really???? They interviewed nobody? Is that your claim?

Oh, and “people in 1965 stating it was a fuss about nothing” – you have the quotes I suppose?

"Someone made a mountain out of a molehill" – Pennsylvania state police captain Joseph Dussia as quoted in the city edition of the Greensburg Tribune-Review, Dec. 10 under the headline of “Searchers fail to find object” (the article that is snipped off on those websites that present only the section of the paper they want you to see). So, I guess they did interview somebody after all.

Ah. So now the eyewitness evidence that supports your case is reliable enough to count as “FACT”, but the eyewitness evidence that contradicts your case is faulty?

Hmmm…You stated that they interviewed nobody but now we know that is a false claim. The only interview you present that was from 1965 is the one of a young person stating he saw the fireball. No big surprise there. Your other evidence provides no sources about the Acorn object. It only says it was reported at the time with no mention of where. The actual papers in 1965 mention nothing about an acorn object. Feel free to provide a better quote.

So there was a military presence… The military denies it.

”There were all kind of military people," said Robert Gatty, now publishing a trade magazine in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, then a reporter with the Tribune-Review in Greensburg. "I couldn't get past them." (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1306.htm)​

Keep repeating this over and over does not make it a FACT, which is what you have claimed. Provide real proof that the military denied having the 662nd radar squadron present and real proof that military personnel other than the radar squadron was present. Otherwise, you are just repeating campfire stories.
Btw, this is an anecdote from recent history after being told of all the military personnel being present. It is not what he reported in 1965. Where did these “all kind of military people” come from?
Once again, I challenge you to provide evidence the military denies the 662nd radar squadron was present and a location/records for the source of these other “military people”.

No, that is your opinion and it does not square with the facts:

Not a fact. It has not been shown that Sanderson was even accurate. He provides no documentation on how he created his path.

In March 1966 - just three months after the event!

Gee, Chamberlain and Krausse published their article in the February 1966 issue, which was sooner than March of 1966! Douglas mentioned his study for the RASC in April of 1966. I wonder why they came to a different conclusion than Sanderson?

And this from a witness at the time:

” John Murphy, news director of the Greensburg radio station WHJB, was one of the first people on the scene. Murphy knew the fire marshal well, but when he attempted to get information from him as to what he had seen in the woods, received the reply, "I'm not sure. You better get your information from the army." Murphy phone the state police barracks at Greensburg, and was informed by the commanding officer there that personnel from the 662nd Radar Squadron, out of the Oakdale Army Support Facility were expected to arrive and conduct a briefing. Surprisingly, he invited Murphy to attend.

At the barracks Murphy found both Army and Air Force personnel present, and was issued an official denial: "The Pennsylvania State Police have made a thorough investigation of the woods. We are convinced there is nothing whatsoever in the woods." Despite this, the military-state police contingent departed for those woods where "nothing whatsoever" occurred, taking Murphy with them. When they got there, a whole bunch of military personnel. . in uniform, carrying equipment had arrived. The woods were declared off-limits and was under quarantine. By the time they got back down to the fire hall, there was wall to wall military everywhere: cars, jeeps, trucks, there was military personnel carrying things in. The guys at the door had riffles and they were loaded.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1315.htm)​

This is not a source written in 1965 (instead it is written thirty years after the fact). No direct quotes of John Murphy regarding the military personnel and rifles. The only direct quote is the statement by the Pennsylvania state police about nothing being in the woods. No surprise there. As I described on my website, there was a lot of confusion concerning civilians and what military were present. The 662nd was referred to as an army unit probably because most of its members wore the standard AF utility, which is green (like the army) and different than the dress uniforms. The officer apparently wore his dress uniform and appeared different than his enlisted men giving the impression two different services were present. One woman even remarked she talked to a Naval officer in one account. I guess AF blue can look like Navy blue especially at night.

Well, that’s just not true.

This to my statement that, “Because these stories did not surface until UFOlogists started promoting their story.” You keep providing links to stories written in the late 1980s and 1990s. You have yet to provide one story from 1965 that demonstrates an acorn was found and the army (except for mention of the radar squadron) was present IN FORCE. The ball is in your court. Give an article written in 1965 that definitively states the acorn was found in the ravine and that there was a large military force present.

What “all”? We only have the official line at the time stating that nothing was found. All the eyewitnesses at the time said something was there.

No. None of the witnesses “At the time” (meaning stating in 1965 and not decades later) mentioned the acorn or something being found. Everyone thought something was there but nobody reported actually seeing anything including Gatty and Murphy.

The eyewitnesses state it crashed just outside Kecksburg. On what grounds do you dismiss their testimony while accepting testimony only from eyewitnesses that support your version?

On what grounds do you reject the 1965 testimony where numerous people in Ohio reported seeing the fireball crash nearby? I dismiss it because it is known that witnesses can make mistakes and there is no evidence provided in 1965 that supports the exotic/exaggerated testimony told by people decades later.

I stated “reportedly” hundreds – remember the traffic jam of people flocking to the area to see what happened?

And that means what? That was reported in 1965 and was why the state police came into play. It was broadcast on the radio and TV and people wanted to go see. That does not mean these “hundreds” saw a crashed acorn being carted off. In fact, there is no mention of it despite these “hundreds” of potential witnesses being present to see it.

Read the documents in the links I provided when I introduced the case (many of them can be found listed also here: http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Kecksburg.htm). Many of the witnesses are certainly identified in those documents.

In other words, you don’t have anything other than the stories told decades later.

I stated:
“You say the 62nd radar squadron was based nearby… and there are a number of large military bases easily within 3 hours driving of Kecksburg.”

Wright-Patterson
ISC Cleveland
Carlisle
Mechanicsburg…

Oh… look …Wright Patterson … where have I heard that name before?

Oh…look….why didn’t they send their own people instead of asking for the RADAR SQUADRON (who have no experience in this sort of thing) to go investigate? Oakdale was nearby and meant they did not need to send anyone unless something significant was found. WP is not an army base.

Carlisle/mechanicsburg was the location of the Army War College. I am not sure if there are any active units present other than the staff and those that support it. You might as well list the local recruiting office in Pittsburgh.

ISC Cleveland is run by the Coast Guard. I am not sure if the Army was ever there.

The bottom line is you have yet to provide a base that had the equipment and personnel that could have been involved. Keep looking.

BIG SNIP as you repeat the same old tired mantra that the witnesses in 1980s onward told a different story than what was told in 1965.

The nearest? You see, it is demonstrably false statements like this that make us suspicious of other things you might contend.

Oakdale PA is located about an hour or two away from Kecksburg. Do you have another nearby AF facility they could contact? Otherwise, it is not demonstrably false. The AF really could not order any Army or Navy’s units that might be closer (I don’t think there are any but you might find a recruiting office somewhere in Pittsburgh) without going up and down their chain of command. So they have to go to the nearest AF unit, which, by all accounts, was the Radar unit in Oakdale PA.

Many major stories were not photographed in that era. It was also at night remember in a dark wooded area…

A major military operation in their backyard and not one reporter bothers to take a snapshot of the heavy military equipment employed (you can take a picture with a flash – people did have those in 1965)? Either it was bad reporting or it did not happen the way it is now being described.

That is a mere unfounded assertion. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. …

To my statement of, “Why are their stories told decades later different than what was reported in 1965?”

Prove me wrong. Show me where their stories in the 1980s and beyond are printed in 1965? You have to provide one bit of evidence that proves their stories about a crashed acorn and massive military involvement are accurate.

Given the military’s track record, a cover-up in cases like Kecksburg is not then an unreasonable hypothesis

And you have yet to provide any evidence in that “track record” that states the military covers up UFO crashes and intimidates civilians. You can’t even provide a location for where these units came from. You can hypothesize all you want but a hypothesis is not proof and you stated it was a FACT that the military is involved in UFO cover-up operations.

I already asked what had the felony got to do with his reliability as a witness. Nothing at all it seems.

I suggest you ask a lawyer that question. If a person is dishonest enough to commit a crime of that nature, how can they be honest in anything else? I thought UFO reports were all about the reliability of the witnesses. Does this mean as long as they tell the story you want to hear they are highly reliable? Does his testimony trump the testimony of the State Police captain, who, in 1965, stated nothing was there?

But then there is the military. They have a track record of not being truthful in such cases (eg; http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf). So do we trust them? On the weight of evidence it would seem prudent not to trust them. Perhaps though
AstroP you can supply us a reason why we should trust them?

What evidence do you provide not to trust them? Nothing as best I can tell. You started this by stating it is a FACT that the military is involved in UFO cover-ups. You have yet to provide one iota of real evidence to support this claim. Therefore, it is NOT a fact.

That is your opinion. There is evidence to suggest otherwise.

This is to my statement of, “Right now the evidence from 1965 supports the claim that nothing crashed.”

No, that is a FACT and not an opinion. You have yet to provide any evidence from 1965 sources that supports the claim that something DID crash in the woods. All the evidence from 1965 sources states nothing was found. When you provide evidence from 1965 sources that state otherwise, you can then say you have evidence from 1965 and not stories told decades later.

Chamberlain and Krausse’s assessment has been repudiated

FALSE. It is an uninformed and biased opinion you are using to make this statement. The argument has not been reviewed by anybody and appears to collapse under scrutiny.

Big snip of your usual uninformed opinions on the owners of the farms where the object supposedly crashed. BTW, the Kovacina farm is the one where everyone says the Acorn crashed into the ravine. It is next to the Millar farm, which is where all the search activity was directed from.

Exotic stories? Something crashed into a wooded ravine outside Kecksburg. Numerous eyewitnesses testify to that fact. You seem to be confusing the stories attributing it to ET with the actual facts on the ground.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

There is no evidence to establish that something ACTUALLY crashed in the woods is a FACT. Where is the object? Where is the actual physical evidence that undeniably demonstrates (in order to establish it as a fact) that something crashed in these woods? All you have are anecdotal stories that carry little weight in establishing something as factual. These anecdotal stories are contradicted by others who were also present and the statements by those groups in 1965 that conducted the searches. However, let’s look at the real FACTS.

FACT: People THOUGHT something came down in the woods in 1965 at the same time a bright fireball was seen over the Great Lakes region.

FACT: The search was reported in 1965 as to have found nothing.

FACT: None of the 1965 press reports mention a military presence beyond the 662nd radar squadron.

FACT: The crashed spaceship/acorn stories told by the current crop of witnesses did not surface until the 1980s.

FACT: The scientific research on the fireball indicated the trajectory was towards Ontario and not Kecksburg. Nothing to date has been presented in scientific journals that refutes this.

FACT: People in various locations other than Kecksburg thought the fireball landed nearby even though it did not.

The bottom line is everything you keep repeating regarding the details of Kecksburg come from the "new and improved version" told in the 1980s and later. The story told in 1965 about Kecksburg had no acorn, had no massive military involvement, and had nothing being found in the woods.

 

[Rramjet]

Given that there has been much talk about the Sci-Fi Channel investigation it is only appropriate to provide a link to the resulting documentary:

Sci-Fi Channel Documentary
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6105797502929375#)

The quality is not so good, but at least it is available...

 

[Astrophotographer]

The second half of "Sci-Fi" is "Fiction". Consider the source.

Speaking of considering the source of information, I decided to pull the string on Ivan Sanderson's work. He actually published his "analysis" ONLY seven days after the Great Lakes Fireball event on December 16, 1965.It appeared on Page 50 of the Amarillo globe times with the ominous title of "Scientist says flying object was not a meteorite". The author of this article was Ivan Sanderson (he is the "scientist" in the title meaning he is tooting his own horn here) with a note from the editor stating NANA (North American Newspaper Alliance) asked him to look into the path of the "strange object". Ivan Sanderson explained his "map". Contrary to claims made that he interviewed witnesses to create his plot, he actually just made some phone calls to places that reported seeing the meteor and plotted them on a map. He collected no azimuths or elevations to compute the trajectory. He just assumed that because people in places like Elyria, Ohio stated they saw the meteor (or that bits of it supposedly fell there) that it must have passed overhead! His last end point was Kecksburg because that was the furthest east anybody reported the meteor.
His right angle turn was not based on any observation of such (he states it happened near Cleveland even there are absolutely no reports in the media stating this and he gives none in his article). He just plotted it that way because it had to do it to make it go to Midland and Kecksburg. Probably the most bogus statement he makes is how he computes the speed of the object. Because there was a difference in time between the Erie, PA, Indiana and Elyria, Ohio observations , he states the object was traveling at roughly 16 miles per minute!!!! This ignores the facts that other witnesses state the fireball was seen around the same moment in time everywhere (within minutes of each other) and that the differences can be accounted for by witnesses using timepieces that were slightly different from each other. Additionally, his flight path was about 200 miles long. If it were traveling at 16mi/min, it would take over an hour to get to Kecksburg, which was reported to have been seen before 5PM. Sanderson's article pretty much ignores established methodologies for interviewing witnesses to fireballs. His work is completely invalid based on reading what he wrote and the gross errors made.

Compare his sloppy approach to the peer-reviewed and extensive work of Krausse/Von Del Chamberlain (as well as the work described by Dr. Douglas of the RASC). They went to the locations where the witnesses were located and had them describe the event noting azimuths and elevations. These were values that could be quantified and analyzed. The end result (even with the potential errors made by the witnesses) would be a consensus for the general location of the objects trajectory. The more witnesses, the better. Luckily, they had the photographs, which agreed with the many witnesses that were interviewed. All of these values resulted in a good fix indicating the meteor headed towards Ontario and not Kecksburg.
In my opinion, using Sanderson's work to refute Von Del Chamberlain and Krausse is the same thing as stating a first grader scribbling on some paper had refuted Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[R.A.F.]

Given that there has been much talk about the Sci-Fi Channel investigation it is only appropriate to provide a link to the resulting documentary:...

That garbage you've linked to is decidedly NOT a documentary...documentaries are factual...

 

[Astrophotographer]

If it were traveling at 16mi/min, it would take over an hour to get to Kecksburg, which was reported to have been seen before 5PM.

MEA MAXIMA CULPA! 16 miles per minute is actually 12.5 minutes for 200 miles. Not sure what I was thinking and figured I point out my major math error before Rramjet makes a production about it. Even if it took only 12.5 minutes, it still is in gross error with all the news reports at the time. BTW, the Mrs. Kalp stated that the observation of the fireball's train was at 4:45PM, which is the same time everybody pretty much reported as being the time of the fireball (+/-5 min). This still indicates Sanderson's speed estimate was just guesswork and invalid. I guess the most glaring thing is that Bluebook's Dr. Hynek must have concluded it was a fireball as well based on the reports. He never mentions Kecksburg (in the sense that it was a "true UFO" event) in any of his books or articles he wrote about UFOs.

 

[Rramjet]

This is getting tiring and, unlike Rramjet, I do have a life elsewhere.

So what is the intent behind such comments from you? How are we supposed to trust that you are entering into the spirit of the debate in good faith when you make such comments?

Really??? How controversial was it in 1965 and was it the “biggest” fireball? I think I can provide you with many bigger and brighter fireballs than this one. Additionally, why would NASA be interested in something scientists had already determined went into Canada? Would NASA have the right to go into Canada?

” Since NASA was responsible for collecting and analyzing space debris at this time, and also had a great interest in fireball meteors, it seems highly unlikely that the agency has absolutely nothing in its files about the Kecksburg incident (for more background on this and the role of other agencies see IUR, http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburg2.pdf and
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburgletters.pdf).

It’s worth noting that NASA sent no news articles or clippings about this fireball that was seen over at least four states; was noted by astronomers; and was considered to be a spectacular meteor when it occurred. Seen by thousands, it was covered in major papers all over North America - in Boston, Toronto, Ohio, San Jose, for example - and of course throughout Pennsylvania. NASA did send newspaper stories about other meteors and fireballs and related events around this time, but not this one. Yet, I suspect this was a bigger, more widely reported story than the ones I was sent. The story of the brilliant orange fireball was widely distributed through UPI and the Associated Press – even picked up by the New York Times – and also made it into the Times of London. Why were none of these news stories in NASA’s files, even though clippings of much lesser, but similar, events were?” (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/NAS...conclusion.pdf)​

Well, I guess I will have to reprint everything that is at my link since you are not interested in going there (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/ScienceFiction.htm).

Thank you for the link. However, I simply do not understand why you did not provide it when you first mentioned it - a simple enough thing to do surely? (and standard protocol for such things). Can I ask that if you wish to engage in such debates, that in future, whenever you cite an article, that you do provide a link (or at the very least a source reference)?

Rudiak’s main arguments are:
1.That there is no error analysis and that a “potential” 0.7 degree error in computing the azimuth for the meteors endpoint could shift the computed path towards Kecksburg. However, Rudiak only lists it as “potential for error” but does not list any definitive measurement that shows there was an error contrary to what you claim! He just shows how an error can alter the trajectory towards Kecksburg.Rudiak’s error analysis of a POTENTIAL 0.7 degree error is interesting in that he wants only one point to shift 0.7 degrees. He provides no proof there is a 0.7 degree error, he just assumes there may be one.

(strange, that is not actually what your “article” states… nevertheless…)

” A huge problem with the JRASC article was no included error analysis. Note that photo sites 1 & 2 are relatively close together compared to the distance to the fireball trail (A & B), creating a narrow triangulation base. This diagram shows the possible effect of 1 degree of error in determining the directions of points A & B. As a consequence, the resulting trajectory instead of being well-defined can instead vary over about 150°! A Kecksburg trajectory would fall well within this error range.

(…)

As an example of just how uncertain such a fireball trajectory calculation can be, the famous Tagish Lake fireball of 2000 in Canada left a much longer smoke trail about 100 miles in length, was photographed from multiple angles from beginning to end, including an overhead satellite photo (thus a very wide base of triangulation) and left a linear debris field of meteorites on Tagish Lake, by itself defining an approximate trajectory, yet various astronomers (1, 2) who calculated the trajectory gave it an accuracy of no more than ±2.2°-2.4° azimuth angle (and ±1.2° -1.6° horizontal entry angle).

Yet the JRASC article, with far less information to go on, assumes ZERO error, which is unscientific not to mention impossible. There is always measurement error; a key component to determining whether a result is valid or not is estimating the degree of error.

(…)

As seen from the graph, a straight-line trajectory to Kecksburg is still possible with an error of about ± 0.6°” (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43)​

Rudiak then followed up that section of his article with an analysis of descent angle to conclude:

”Thus, if the object was really flying at a sharp angle away from the camera, it could be slowly descending in near level flight instead of being in a steep dive, as in the JRASC article. Furthermore, it could fly all the way to Kecksburg instead of impacting nearby. To accommodate the greater azimuths required in this near-level-flight, distant-impact scenario, the errors in determining triangulation directions would have to be increased to about ± 0.7 degrees”​

One can easily state the error would apply to both points and then the meteor goes in another direction.

Indeed – and that is just the whole point! Chamberlain and Krausse contended that their calculated trajectory was the only possible conclusion! However, the merest fraction of a degree in measurement error from two the photographs analysed (whose precise locations - within 1 degree - were actually not that precisely known!) could throw their conclusions completely out!

You also claim that Chamberlain and Krausse are peer-reviewed scientists, yet no scientist I know has ever published a peer-reviewed scientific paper containing such a measurement analysis without including a measurement error assessment. Indeed, one has to wonder how Chamberlain and Krausse even got their paper past the editors on this point…

2.Chamberlain and Krause failed to notice or, apparently, lied about the "drift" caused by the winds between the Wright and Champine photographs. This drift could be the source of errors in their computations that would lead to a faulty solution. Chamberlain and Krause DID note the drift of the meteor train and if you overlay the two images of the train on top of each other the two key points of A and B (which were the only ones used for triangulation) are in the same location. There is no significant drift on those two points. Any other drifting along the path does not affect the triangulation calculations. This invalidates Rudiak’s argument on this point.

In your article you overlay photos 1b and 2 and state “…there is very little shift in position of these points in relation to his lateral yellow line”. However, those two photos were taken with different cameras from completely different locations! For an accurate assessment of drift you should have overlayed photos 1a and 1b – which were taken with the same camera from the same location and reportedly 15 seconds apart. In that time (15 seconds) it is notable that between the two photos there is a 31% difference! - and it must be noted that between photos 1a and 2, there is a 44% difference). This indicates, as Rudiak noted, a significant effect of shearing winds - which of course immediately introduces a significant error into Chamberlain and Krausse’s analysis!

Rudiak concludes:

”As an example of how this could affect the trajectory calculation, the distances from the photographers to the midpoint of the smoke trail is on the order of 45 miles. 1 mile lateral change in position represents about 1.25°. A lateral shift of 0.25-0.50 miles between photos 1a & 2 would thus represent an angular shift between A and B of about 0.3-0.6°; whereas ~1.2° total direction error is all that would be needed to send the fireball on a possible trajectory headed straight for Kecksburg.”​

3.That the apparent angular size of the dust train was not uniform across the length of the trail indicating the debris trail pointed away from the photographers and towards Kecksburg. This is based on what he wants to see. If you look at various fireball debris trails of daylight fireballs, you will discover they are not uniform even when heading towards the observer (see Tagish lake photograph at my link above). Many factors affect the creation of a debris trail of this kind. It is not uniform along its length like an airplane contrail. Rudiak ignores all of this.

First - time and wind dispersal do affect uniformity. Rudiak makes that point nicely in repudiation of Chamberlain and Krausse’s analysis. It is actually a point against their analysis (it introduces error into their analysis since their calculations are primarily based on a completely stable trail!).

Second, the photo of the “Tagish Lake Meteorite/Fireball” (http://meteor.uwo.ca/~pbrown/tagish/index.html#menu that you reference (http://meteor.uwo.ca/~pbrown/tagish/dustcloud.html) does NOT stipulate that (as you contend in your article) it was heading toward the photographer at all!

(Oh …and look there …some professional astronomers have included the two terms together to name the same object… Remember where you stated the following as a criticism of me?

I am not sure where you get the idea I stated it was not a fireball/meteor. Perhaps you are confused by the term “meteor” and “meteorite”.

Finally, forget all this “scientific” analysis, I defy anyone (apart from Chamberlain and Krausse) to look at the complete set of photos (http://www.roswellproof.com/Kecksburg_smoketrail_photos.html) and conclude anything other than that the fireball was moving from right to left and somewhat away from the observers (generally, north-west to south-east). Chamberlain and Krausse contend it is moving largely at right angles to the photographers and slightly toward them (generally, south-west to north-east)! Please…

Most important to understand again is that Rudiak’s article is NOT peer-reviewed. I have no evidence that Rudiak is an expert on fireballs or he has ever attempted to plot a fireball path before. Therefore, his OPINION, which is flawed for the reasons I listed is completely invalid.

“Most important”? Please, you keep making this “non-peer-review” objection to Rudiak. However, every time you make it I will merely point out that it does not take a peer-review process to note the flaws in another’s argument. Either the argument is sound or it is not – unless of course you are disqualifying yourself from being able to make such an assessment …are you?

We then have you promoting Ivan Sanderson’s version of the path, which, again, is plotted by a non-expert in a non-peer reviewed manner, who ignores all the data collected by scientists as well as the testimony of the witnesses collected by those actually investigating the fireball.

“Promoting”? Noooo …Merely noting that someone else who studies the trajectory and interviewed the witnesses came to a different conclusion to that of Chamberlain and Krausse. However, since you reject Sanderson’s March 1966 analysis on the grounds that it was not peer-reviewed…

”JRASC wasn't the only astronomical journal to publish an article on the fireball. Sky and Telescope magazine published an earlier article in February 1966 ("Great Lakes fireball"), in which they contradicted the JRASC trajectory conclusion. As the caption of their diagram below reads, "The path of the fireball extended roughly northwest to southeast..." ”​

Hmmm …interesting …another publication contradicts Chamberlain and Krausse …not so sure about who is ignoring what data here… unless of course you also consider Sky and Telescope is not a reputable publication… are you contending that?

In order to make sure you understand why this is all wishful thinking, I present further information concerning analysis of the fireball done by astronomers in 1965-66:
In April, 1966, Dr. Douglas wrote the article, "The fireball of December 9, 1965, Essex County, Ontario" and it was presented in the “Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Associate Committee on Meteorites”. He wrote the following:
“On-the-spot interviews of some seventy observers (now close to 100) were made by Mr. Henry Lee, President of the Windsor Centre of the RASC, and the writer during part of January. Reduction of this sighting data confirmed the general ground position of the end-point as was determined from the photographs by Mr. Chamberlain. Contacts with eyewitnesses were obtained through requests in a daily and four weekly newspapers, radio station CJSP, Leamington, and through area high schools.”

Umm …what “end-point”? I thought you were claiming that the eyewitnesses saw it come down in many different places.

If you read my collection of articles from 1965 on the event, you will see there were plenty of other communities that claimed the fireball “crashed” or dropped fragments near them as well. Elyria Ohio was full of reports including a fire being started by the meteorite that supposedly landed in a field.

You seem to keep wanting to have it both ways AstroP.

It also seems to me that there is a great deal of contention about the trajectory of this “fireball”. Some say this way, others say that way… considering that contention, I think that all we (at this point in time) can conclude is that we cannot rule out the “Kecksburg” trajectory.

Again, we have scientists actually interviewing witnesses and collecting reports in 1965-6 and submitting the analysis of these reports in a scientific venue. Their analysis proves that Rudiak and Sanderson are wrong! When you can present a peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates the meteor went towards Kecksburg, you have a valid argument against their work.

”JRASC wasn't the only astronomical journal to publish an article on the fireball. Sky and Telescope magazine published an earlier article in February 1966 ("Great Lakes fireball"), in which they contradicted the JRASC trajectory conclusion. As the caption of their diagram below reads, "The path of the fireball extended roughly northwest to southeast..." ” ​

FACT: The search of the woods near Kecksburg in 1965 stated nothing was found.

You keep presenting unfounded assertion as “FACT”. Moreover, you seem to have left an important detail out of your “fact” (a “search” cannot “state” anything). That is that it was the military who claimed nothing was found (and some news outlets merely reported that official line) – all the eyewitnesses tell a different story.

The members of the 662nd radar squadron reported this, the state police stated this, the papers reported it, and this was the conclusion of the Greensburg-Tribune staff. Why would all these people say nothing was found, if something was indeed there?

Yes, we know the military denied it! However, I think you will find that was not the conclusion of the staff reporters who were there at the time - Gatty and Murphy. I do find it interesting that both reporters who were there at the time report a military presence and a recovered object.

Sanderson and Rudiak’s analysis is flawed.

You have not demonstrated that at all. You merely believe Sanderson to be incorrect and you have simply misrepresented Rudiak in your assessment of his work - and I have shown how you have done so above.

It has not been submitted for peer review and can not be used for proof of anything.

Oh …so then quite obviously we can reject your own “analysis” and statements on those grounds too? Or is it simply that it does not take a peer-reviewed publication to note the errors in another’s work.

Your argument is invalid.

I could not have put it better myself…

Read them again. They all talk about a fireball descending nearby. It was not a fragmentation event (there are no multiple debris trails in the photographs), so they were describing the fireball descending nearby.

So a fireball cannot fragment and “land” in various places? I find that a strange thing to contend, especially from one who alleges expertise in such matters…

FACT: Nobody in any of the 1965 sources reported seeing or finding any objects at Kecksburg.

The people who were there at the time report an object.

I stated:
“ You are simply misunderstanding a fundamental basis of science and logic. Follow carefully:

1. People claim something crash landed into a wooded ravine in 1965.
2. Subsequent (years later) analysis of the trees in that area show that some were damaged in 1965 (the tree ring data showed the date).
3. This is consistent with the claims that something crash landed in the area.
4. If the trees were found to have suffered no damage in 1965, then that would suggest that nothing crashed through them in 1965.
5. However, the tree ring data is also consistent with the claim that perhaps an ice windstorm damaged the trees (although the coincidence of the specific area and time is remarkable).
6. Therefore we cannot say that the tree ring data is proof of a crash – only that it is consistent with the claim.”

You are simply ignoring the FACT that nobody in the 1965 sources reported seeing or finding any objects crashed into the ravine. ALL of your evidence to support your conclusion comes from testimony made decades later. It is false logic.

That was not the argument AstroP. The argument was that the tree ring data (which you originally claimed was “bogus”) was consistent with something having crashed in the area. The logic is sound.

Occam’s razor. There is no indication that anything crashed. No gouge, no object, and no witnesses stating such in 1965 sources. Therefore, it is far more likely it was wind or ice damage, which is not unusual for Pennsylvania.

Your principle objection to the whole thing (and one you keep returning to and repeating over and over – as if mere repetition will somehow confer veracity or legitimacy in the contention) seems to be that no-one in 1965 (at the time) claimed to have seen the crashed object.

At the time there were plenty who claimed there was a crash, and there were also some who saw the smoke and noted the site and also a blue light. However, you seem to want to restrict that “at the time” to the single evening/night in question! Greater detail did emerge over the coming days and months as investigators tracked down and interviewed the various witnesses. How could you expect all the details of the case to suddenly be there in toto - ready for immediate publication on the very same night of the occurrence? Then, merely on the basis of the fact that all the details were not immediately accessible and reported, you reject the whole case? Such a requirement and suggestion seems ridiculous in the extreme.

"Someone made a mountain out of a molehill" – Pennsylvania state police captain Joseph Dussia as quoted in the city edition of the Greensburg Tribune-Review, Dec. 10 under the headline of “Searchers fail to find object” (the article that is snipped off on those websites that present only the section of the paper they want you to see). So, I guess they did interview somebody after all.

John Murphy, the news director of WHJB radio, who was there at the time stated he saw an object. Romansky stated he saw the object.

“Jerry Betters, a popular jazz musician from Pittsburgh, has gone public and told his story that soldiers aimed rifles at him and his friends, ordering them from a back road, as an Army flat bed tractor-trailer with an acorn-shaped object on board, was making it's way up from a field” (http://www.stangordon.info/kecksburg.htm).

Stan Gordon also states: “I was contacted by a former Air Force security policeman who told me that he was among the unit that guarded the object from PA, when it arrived in the early morning hours of December 10, 1965 at Lockbourne Air Force near Columbus, Ohio. He remembers extreme security measures at the time…” (http://www.stangordon.info/kecksburg.htm).

There were others, watch the Sci-Fi Channel documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6105797502929375#)

I quoted:
”There were all kind of military people," said Robert Gatty, now publishing a trade magazine in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, then a reporter with the Tribune-Review in Greensburg. "I couldn't get past them." (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1306.htm)

Keep repeating this over and over does not make it a FACT, which is what you have claimed.

Gatty was there in an official capacity as a news reporter – he was an eyewitness to the events and he has placed his testimony on the record. I am merely noting his testimony (and that of the other reporter on the scene, Murphy, and many other eyewitnesses besides) Are you stating Gatty is a liar?

I dismiss it because it is known that witnesses can make mistakes and there is no evidence provided in 1965 that supports the exotic/exaggerated testimony told by people decades later.

Yes of course – the old “eyewitnesses are fallible” trick. The UFO debunker fallback position - an oldie, but a goodie. However, merely because eyewitnesses can be mistaken, does not mean that they are mistaken (just because something is possible does not mean that it is probable…).

Besides, you perhaps misconceive the type of fallibility eyewitnesses are prone to. They are not prone to hallucinating – en masse - all the activity that was reported as occurring that night. They might have got some of the details incorrect – sure, that does happen – but not the whole event!

In reference to the fact that there are many bases located in the surrounding country who could have supplied military personnel within a few hours (which seems to be what happened according to the witnesses who were there…)

Oh…look….why didn’t they send their own people instead of asking for the RADAR SQUADRON (who have no experience in this sort of thing) to go investigate? Oakdale was nearby and meant they did not need to send anyone unless something significant was found. WP is not an army base.

Oakdale, as you say, is a radar station …so one has to ask - why send personnel from there (especially, as you say, when they would have no experience in such things), when there were so many other bases that were much closer? Oakdale is perhaps the furthest away of all of them!

Carlisle/mechanicsburg was the location of the Army War College. I am not sure if there are any active units present other than the staff and those that support it. You might as well list the local recruiting office in Pittsburgh.

Yeah, that’s right, a college without students or professional staff or equipment... Sure thing AstroP.

ISC Cleveland is run by the Coast Guard. I am not sure if the Army was ever there.

So …you are “not sure”..?

The bottom line is you have yet to provide a base that had the equipment and personnel that could have been involved. Keep looking.

You asked me to provide the names of military bases within a few of hours of Kecksburg – I did that. Your original contention was that there were none! Demonstrably that contention was false.

Oakdale PA is located about an hour or two away from Kecksburg. Do you have another nearby AF facility they could contact? Otherwise, it is not demonstrably false. The AF really could not order any Army or Navy’s units that might be closer (I don’t think there are any but you might find a recruiting office somewhere in Pittsburgh) without going up and down their chain of command. So they have to go to the nearest AF unit, which, by all accounts, was the Radar unit in Oakdale PA.

Wright-Patterson… used by all branches of the military and simply bristling full of men and equipment…

BIG SNIP as you repeat the same old tired mantra that the witnesses in 1980s onward told a different story than what was told in 1965.

You say these things but it is simply not true. The eyewitnesses have been consistent all along. It is in fact you, in your characterisation of the events, who has been demonstrably inconsistent in this matter.

(…and perhaps you only snip out my arguments because you cannot deal with them? That is I do note in that regard that many of the points I made in refutation of your own arguments in the previous post - you have simply ignored…)

A major military operation in their backyard and not one reporter bothers to take a snapshot of the heavy military equipment employed (you can take a picture with a flash – people did have those in 1965)? Either it was bad reporting or it did not happen the way it is now being described.

That no photos were published does not mean that none were taken. It was at night, it is possible that any photos taken were not of publishable quality. Or indeed, perhaps none were taken… who knows, it does not prove anything one way or other.

To my statement of, “Why are their stories told decades later different than what was reported in 1965?”

Prove me wrong. Show me where their stories in the 1980s and beyond are printed in 1965?

LOL. You are merely trying to illegitimately shift the burden of proof here AstroP. You made the claim that the stories are different now than they were in 1965! YOU made the claim – YOU must support that claim with evidence – or we can dismiss it is unfounded. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You have to provide one bit of evidence that proves their stories about a crashed acorn and massive military involvement are accurate.

We have the eyewitness testimony from the people who were there at the time. Those testimonies are consistent with each other. There is nobody who was an actual witness who contradicts anything in other eyewitnesses claims.

And you have yet to provide any evidence in that “track record” that states the military covers up UFO crashes and intimidates civilians.

If you cannot be bothered to read the things I post and link to (here for example (http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf), then I begin to wonder what I am even doing attempting to debate with you – as you seem singularly unwilling to examine and assess the actual evidence.

You can’t even provide a location for where these units came from.

I have provided a number of potential locations. That you dismiss them with the wave-of-a-hand does not negate that fact.

You can hypothesize all you want but a hypothesis is not proof and you stated it was a FACT that the military is involved in UFO cover-up operations.

I have stated no such thing. I am merely noting the eyewitness testimony. It is in fact demonstrably YOU who “hypothesise” (and speculate) and then present that (mostly unfounded assertion) as “FACT” - not me.

I suggest you ask a lawyer that question.

A lawyer would state that an entirely unrelated felony would not be admissible as evidence against anyone’s reliability as an eyewitness in a completely unrelated matter.

If a person is dishonest enough to commit a crime of that nature, how can they be honest in anything else?

You are merely speculating about a motivation you know nothing about. Moreover, you have never been “dishonest” about anything in your whole life before? I find that hard to believe. So does your previous dishonesty then disqualify you from commenting here?

I thought UFO reports were all about the reliability of the witnesses. Does this mean as long as they tell the story you want to hear they are highly reliable?

It seems to me that you are the only one here who is accepting evidence from those who support your side of the story while dismissing out-of-hand evidence from those who contradict your story.

Does his testimony trump the testimony of the State Police captain, who, in 1965, stated nothing was there?

The weight of evidence from numerous sources suggests something other than the official pronouncement occurred.

What evidence do you provide not to trust them? Nothing as best I can tell. You started this by stating it is a FACT that the military is involved in UFO cover-ups. You have yet to provide one iota of real evidence to support this claim. Therefore, it is NOT a fact.

Are you kidding me?
(http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf)
And more generally: (http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)

FACT: People THOUGHT something came down in the woods in 1965 at the same time a bright fireball was seen over the Great Lakes region.

The eyewitnesses who were there at the time contend something crashed into the woods outside Kecksburg.

FACT: The search was reported in 1965 as to have found nothing.

The military deny anything was found. People who did not witness the events of that night deny anything was found.

FACT: None of the 1965 press reports mention a military presence beyond the 662nd radar squadron.

Headline from the time: “Army ropes off area”.

FACT: The crashed spaceship/acorn stories told by the current crop of witnesses did not surface until the 1980s.

The eyewitnesses who were there at the time contend something crashed into the woods outside Kecksburg (I also love the dissembling “current crop of witnesses”).

FACT: The scientific research on the fireball indicated the trajectory was towards Ontario and not Kecksburg. Nothing to date has been presented in scientific journals that refutes this.

One does not need a peer-review publication to note the flaws in another’s argument – or are you ruling yourself out of being able to comment in this regard?

FACT: People in various locations other than Kecksburg thought the fireball landed nearby even though it did not.

Yet in all those other cases no military presence was claimed, no object was claimed, no traffic jam was created, no controversy ensued …

The bottom line is everything you keep repeating regarding the details of Kecksburg come from the "new and improved version" told in the 1980s and later. The story told in 1965 about Kecksburg had no acorn, had no massive military involvement, and had nothing being found in the woods.

You dissemble again… The eyewitnesses who were there at the time tell a consistent story.

The second half of "Sci-Fi" is "Fiction". Consider the source.

You mean here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5797502929375#)? You simply gotta sort the wheat from the chaff AstroP. The implication of what you are telling me here is that you cannot do that - and so you dismiss the whole thing. Why does that not surprise me?

Speaking of considering the source of information, I decided to pull the string on Ivan Sanderson's work.

Did you indeed. You have a link to his analysis then? Perhaps you can post it so that we may determine the veracity of your characterisation (below) of Sanderson’s analysis?

He actually published his "analysis" ONLY seven days after the Great Lakes Fireball event on December 16, 1965.It appeared on Page 50 of the Amarillo globe times with the ominous title of "Scientist says flying object was not a meteorite".

Can you please tell me what is “ominous” about that title? This of course follows what seems to be a developing pattern from you (remember your claim that “Army ropes of area” was a “sensationalist” headline?). I simply don’t know whether I can trust your judgement any more AstroP. For example:

Contrary to claims made that he interviewed witnesses to create his plot, he actually just made some phone calls to places that reported seeing the meteor…

Then further down you state:

Sanderson's article pretty much ignores established methodologies for interviewing witnesses to fireballs…

I mean… First you say he did not interview the witnesses, then you imply that when he did, he ignored established protocol! How then am I supposed to trust your assessment about what Sanderson did or did not do? It is the same old story. It is very easy for you to put forward unfounded and misleading claims, but it takes me a great deal of research and explanation to refute those claims. My guess is that you consider your best weapon at this point is to throw as much mud into the works as you possibly can - in the hope that it will gum up the works and I will be overwhelmed in trying to unpack it all. For example, your very next contention:

The author of this article was Ivan Sanderson (he is the "scientist" in the title meaning he is tooting his own horn here) with a note from the editor stating NANA (North American Newspaper Alliance) asked him to look into the path of the "strange object".

What is the point of that aside about “tooting his own horn” AstroP? You seem to have a particularly jaundiced take on things – seeming to never miss an opportunity to denigrate. Besides, how do you know he wrote the title himself? In my experience it is the editors of newspapers who create the published titles – quite often in spite of the objections of the actual writers of the article.

Given such considerations as above, I quite simply do not trust the rest of your assessment of Sanderson’s work. Unless you can provide the actual article in question (ot tell us how we can access it) for us to examine - then I am inclined to dismiss your assessment of his work as very probably unduly biased.

MEA MAXIMA CULPA! 16 miles per minute is actually 12.5 minutes for 200 miles. Not sure what I was thinking and figured I point out my major math error before Rramjet makes a production about it.

No need, you have done admirably well on your own accord. Besides, according to you I would have to have submitted and published a peer-reviewed article on the matter before you would have accepted my comments.

Even if it took only 12.5 minutes, it still is in gross error with all the news reports at the time.

Is it indeed …You see you make these claims, but never supply the supporting evidence!

BTW, the Mrs. Kalp stated that the observation of the fireball's train was at 4:45PM, which is the same time everybody pretty much reported as being the time of the fireball (+/-5 min). This still indicates Sanderson's speed estimate was just guesswork and invalid.

I thought you stated that witnesses everywhere were providing contradictory and inconsistent times (at least that was your objection to at least Sanderson - and so the best anyone could do was take some sort of on average estimate) – now you want to be precise (+/-5min)? Besides, have you even noted what the implications of your stated error margin does to your estimate of 12.5 minutes?

I guess the most glaring thing is that Bluebook's Dr. Hynek must have concluded it was a fireball as well based on the reports. He never mentions Kecksburg (in the sense that it was a "true UFO" event) in any of his books or articles he wrote about UFOs.

The “most glaring”? Do you realise how many cases Blue Book generated? And Hynek “must have concluded”..? Yeah right – of course, he simply must have concluded (!) - there is absolutely no doubt in your mind about that is there AstroP. So Hynek “never mentions” Kecksburg – so what – I’d hardly call that a “glaring” omission… in any case, it would have been physically impossible for him to have mentioned all the anomalous cases in the files. He made his case with those he did – nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I will, again, try to cut to the chase of Rramjet’s argument and skip all the extra stuff. So if I snip anything that is important, feel free to bring it back up. I would like to limit the length of these responses.

It’s worth noting that NASA sent no news articles or clippings about this fireball that was seen over at least four states; was noted by astronomers; and was considered to be a spectacular meteor when it occurred……..

It still does not prove your statement that this was a controversial event or why Kecksburg HAS to be in those files. Looking at the Bluebook records, Houston did call Bluebook but Quintanilla told them it was probably just a meteor and nothing had been found at Kecksburg (which is described as Acme in the Bluebook files). That appears to have been the height of NASA’s interest in the matter. There would be no need to clutter their files up with a simple bolide that produced no fragments. People see bright fireballs on a pretty regular basis and most don’t produce meteorites.

This diagram shows the possible effect of 1 degree of error in determining the directions of points A & B. As a consequence, the resulting trajectory instead of being well-defined can instead vary over about 150°! A Kecksburg trajectory would fall well within this error range.

Does not prove it went to Kecksburg…Moving on.

Rudiak then followed up that section of his article with an analysis of descent angle to conclude:

Still does not prove anything. He provides no real data to work with. He is just giving us his interpretation, which excludes the rest of the evidence in the eyewitness reports collected at the time.

You also claim that Chamberlain and Krausse are peer-reviewed scientists, yet no scientist I know has ever published a peer-reviewed scientific paper containing such a measurement analysis without including a measurement error assessment. Indeed, one has to wonder how Chamberlain and Krausse even got their paper past the editors on this point…

Possibly because there was an error analysis but it was not included in the final document. I am sure that a great number of things that supported the paper were not included in the product you read.

In your article you overlay photos 1b and 2 and state “…there is very little shift in position of these points in relation to his lateral yellow line”. However, those two photos were taken with different cameras from completely different locations! For an accurate assessment of drift you should have overlayed photos 1a and 1b – which were taken with the same camera from the same location and reportedly 15 seconds apart.

No. These were the two images used for triangulation. The argument by Rudiak was that there was a significant difference between the two and he demonstrated it with his little lines. However, he did not mention that points A and B were the same. They are the only things that matter. The rest is all smoke and mirrors.

This indicates, as Rudiak noted, a significant effect of shearing winds - which of course immediately introduces a significant error into Chamberlain and Krausse’s analysis!

Yet points A and B remained in the same position. It does not matter what happened to the rest of the debris trail.

First - time and wind dispersal do affect uniformity. Rudiak makes that point nicely in repudiation of Chamberlain and Krausse’s analysis. It is actually a point against their analysis (it introduces error into their analysis since their calculations are primarily based on a completely stable trail!).

The debris came from the meteoroid. How much is removed at which point in the path is going to determine how much is seen. Towards the end of the flight, the meteoroid will be smaller and, therefore, produce less debris. The terminal point is due to the terminal burst of the meteoroid and produced a larger amount of debris.

Second, the photo of the “Tagish Lake Meteorite/Fireball” (http://meteor.uwo.ca/~pbrown/tagish/index.html#menu that you reference (http://meteor.uwo.ca/~pbrown/tagish/dustcloud.html) does NOT stipulate that (as you contend in your article) it was heading toward the photographer at all!

I sourced where I got the image but I did more than just stare at the pictures. I found where the photographer took the image from. If you actually read the scientific paper on the matter (Tagish lake meteorite fall: Interpretation of Fireball characteristics), you would see the photograph was taken from Atlin, BC by Ewald Lemke. The meteor was going in the direction of Atlin (not exactly but close enough).

Finally, forget all this “scientific” analysis, I defy anyone (apart from Chamberlain and Krausse) to look at the complete set of photos (http://www.roswellproof.com/Kecksburg_smoketrail_photos.html) and conclude anything other than that the fireball was moving from right to left and somewhat away from the observers (generally, north-west to south-east). Chamberlain and Krausse contend it is moving largely at right angles to the photographers and slightly toward them (generally, south-west to north-east)! Please…

Well, you can see what you want but the data supports their conclusions. Appealing to a “will to believe” is not science. I would think a “scientist” would understand this.

However, since you reject Sanderson’s March 1966 analysis on the grounds that it was not peer-reviewed…

I reject it for that reason that it was not a proper study of the data. It was only phone calls and reading news reports. There is nothing in his analysis to indicate it is valid in anyway.

Hmmm …interesting …another publication contradicts Chamberlain and Krausse …not so sure about who is ignoring what data here… unless of course you also consider Sky and Telescope is not a reputable publication… are you contending that?

Hmm…who was the source for this article’s information? Oh…it was Von Del Chamberlain himself. Obviously, in order to make the deadline for February 1966 issue, which was printed in early January 1966 based on how Sky and Tel used to do business (they were always about two months behind on news and used to have a news notes section which is where they put in last minute information). Von Del Chamberlain gave them the best information he had at the time. Further refinement of the observations and photographs pivoted the end point. A good scientist would follow the data and not stick to his original idea that it went southeast. Most important to note is that nobody reported the fireball passing overhead in Ohio. They reported it in northerly/northwesterly directions.

It also seems to me that there is a great deal of contention about the trajectory of this “fireball”. Some say this way, others say that way… considering that contention, I think that all we (at this point in time) can conclude is that we cannot rule out the “Kecksburg” trajectory.

Feel free to keep saying that but the evidence indicates otherwise. Even if the fireball disappeared in a southeast direction as you want so much to believe. The end point would be on the north side of the lake about 200 miles from Kecksburg. Meteorites tend to come down a lot closer than 200 miles from the fireball’s endpoint. The Peekskill meteorite was recovered about 80 miles from the end of its luminous flight and it was a slow meteoroid (the fireball lasted about 40 seconds) with a low entry angle and terminated its luminous flight at a pretty high altitude (I think values of 20-30 km are common in most fireballs for terminal height). It seems highly unlikely that the meteoroid could have traveled the distance beyond its luminous flight to Kecksburg without some “help”. I suppose you are now going to say that is proof it was not just a meteor and, therefore, it must be “alien”.

Now we get back to the usual back and forth where (again edited to cut to the chase):

That is that it was the military who claimed nothing was found (and some news outlets merely reported that official line) – all the eyewitnesses tell a different story.

“ALL”???? Feel free to produce the eyewitness testimonies from 1965 sources. I have yet to see one that says different. BTW, the state police stated there was nothing and so did the newspaper staff, who investigated as well. So, it wasn’t just the military who stated nothing was found.

However, I think you will find that was not the conclusion of the staff reporters who were there at the time - Gatty and Murphy. I do find it interesting that both reporters who were there at the time report a military presence and a recovered object.

Produce these stories from 1965 and not decades later. So far, all I have seen you quote are recent sources and people making claims with no proof.

So a fireball cannot fragment and “land” in various places? I find that a strange thing to contend, especially from one who alleges expertise in such matters…

Meteoroids can fragment during the fall and it does happen. However, they all USUALLY end up in the same general area (called a strewn field) and not tens of miles apart. I believe there are physics involve for this.

The people who were there at the time report an object

You keep saying this but you have yet to show any source in 1965 that stated seeing an actual object to support that claim. Making statements decades after the event are not the same thing as what was documented at the time. Their stories are suspect.

At the time there were plenty who claimed there was a crash, and there were also some who saw the smoke and noted the site and also a blue light. However, you seem to want to restrict that “at the time” to the single evening/night in question! Greater detail did emerge over the coming days and months as investigators tracked down and interviewed the various witnesses. How could you expect all the details of the case to suddenly be there in toto - ready for immediate publication on the very same night of the occurrence? Then, merely on the basis of the fact that all the details were not immediately accessible and reported, you reject the whole case? Such a requirement and suggestion seems ridiculous in the extreme.

Feel free to document how these details surfaced only days or months after the event. They did not from what I discovered. They only surfaced decades later. The local media and state police found nothing. The media even went out the next day and searched around on their own:

"A team of Newsmen this morning was making a search of the area"
(source: Uniontown PA "Evening standard-Final edition" Page 1 December 10, 1965.”Meteorite search fails”).

They found nothing. No broken trees, dug up earth, or any other sign that something unusual happened. This was reported in the Greenburg Tribune-review editorial of December 11, 1965 stated they could not find any evidence of anything. Nobody documented a massive military involvement (According to Bob Young even Murphy’s radio broadcast fails to mention a large military force or finding an object). The members of the 662nd said they found nothing. There is no evidence showing the claims are true. Stating there is without producing some honest to goodness document is “ridiculous in the extreme”.

Gatty was there in an official capacity as a news reporter – he was an eyewitness to the events and he has placed his testimony on the record. I am merely noting his testimony (and that of the other reporter on the scene, Murphy, and many other eyewitnesses besides) Are you stating Gatty is a liar?

He never reported it in his articles in 1965. Gatty reports no massive military involvement or any object actually being recovered. Either he was a bad reporter back then or he remembers “differently” today with all these people making claims these things happened. It would not be the first time somebody had their memories influenced by others.

Oakdale, as you say, is a radar station …so one has to ask - why send personnel from there (especially, as you say, when they would have no experience in such things), when there were so many other bases that were much closer? Oakdale is perhaps the furthest away of all of them!

Really??? Name those that are closer. So far you have yet to do so. They WERE the closest AF unit. It was after the work day for most stations with only the minimal duty section on base. However, the radar station worked 24 hours with a full staff round the clock. That may have also played a role in selecting them. Detaching an officer and a few enlisted men would not have had an adverse affect on unit operations so they were the best available.

You asked me to provide the names of military bases within a few of hours of Kecksburg – I did that. Your original contention was that there were none! Demonstrably that contention was false.

However, the ones you listed do not have the manpower or equipment to do the things you claimed. I believe that my original contention was that it would be impossible for units to mobilize and conduct the operations described in three hours (which was the number you came up with) and that there weren’t any such units in the area.

Wright-Patterson… used by all branches of the military and simply bristling full of men and equipment…

A distance by present roads of about 268 miles if you use Google earth (listed travel time just under 5 hours using a civilian vehicle and not military convoy – which WOULD be much slower and WOULD be noticed). Were all the branches of the military present at WPAFB in 1965? I know the USAF was but I doubt the Navy/Marines had anything of significance (maybe a liaison officer) there and I seriously doubt the Army did as well (Usually army units are based at something with the title of “Fort”). I also question that it was “bristling” with the equipment described in the Kecksburg legend. BTW, WPAFB is much farther away than Oakdale, PA (near the Pittsburgh airport), which is only a distance of about 62 miles on current roads (about an hour and half travel time). Still waiting for you to admit that Oakdale was closest or provide me with an AF unit that was closer. You might find a recruiter/reserve center somewhere nearby but that really can’t be consider a “unit” since they answer to a district HQ and may have closed up the office for the day.

That no photos were published does not mean that none were taken. It was at night, it is possible that any photos taken were not of publishable quality. Or indeed, perhaps none were taken… who knows, it does not prove anything one way or other

It indicates there was nothing of significance present or that Gatty, Murphy, and other newsmen were just awful in their job. Where are the “after” pictures the next day? Newsmen went out by all accounts and looked about in hopes of finding something. I am sure they would have noticed all the vehicle tire tracks that supposedly were made, the broken trees en masse, and the dug up ground. They certainly would have photographed it. Instead they came up….empty. I guess that magic wand used by the military is a great thing when it comes to UFO events.

You made the claim that the stories are different now than they were in 1965! YOU made the claim – YOU must support that claim with evidence – or we can dismiss it is unfounded. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I have yet to see you present evidence that my claim is wrong. I have seen/read just about everything written in 1965 (and listed them on my website) and I see nothing in there describing a significant military force and a large acorn-like object being found and carted away. You say this is not true but you have to show me where they made these claims in 1965.

The weight of evidence from numerous sources suggests something other than the official pronouncement occurred.

All quoting the same people decades after the event. Not good enough. The contemporary sources disagree with these stories no matter how hard you try and spin it.

Are you kidding me?
(http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf)
And more generally: (http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)

Nothing in these documents prove that the military is actively covering up UFO events. Can you be more specific?

The military deny anything was found. People who did not witness the events of that night deny anything was found.

Hmmm….that is not what was in the tape Murphy made. How do you state that the state police (who by record were conducting the search) did not “witness” the events that night? They said nothing was found. The editorial staff of the paper concluded nothing was found and they looked the next day. Exactly, who stated in 1965 sources that something was found/recovered?

Did you indeed. You have a link to his analysis then? Perhaps you can post it so that we may determine the veracity of your characterisation (below) of Sanderson’s analysis?

It is from the Newspaper archive (which I pay for). I gave you the source. I prefer not to reprint every source for you since it takes time and effort on my part (one can not simply cut and paste the text in some of these files) that you fail to appreciate. Additionally, it simply adds to the lengthy posts. However, in the spirit of being open and providing information that you were apparently not interested in locating yourself, here is the article (if there are typos or errors in the transcription it was because I sort of rushed it but you get the idea):

Scientist Says Flying Object Was Not a Meteorite

(Editors note: Ivan Sanderson is a widely respected authority on the on explained phenomena of science, although he is often at loggerheads wlth what he calls the Scientific Establishment. Among his many books are 'The Continent We Live On (Random House), and his just published 'Book of Great Jungles' {Julien Messner). NANA asked him to try to make some sense out of the strange object in the skies seen by many Americans last week. Sanderson was on the phone all night with state patrol desks at the 'landing points'.)

by Ivan T. Sanderson

NEW YORK (NANA) - Shortly before sundown on Dec. 9, a fiery, bright-orange object,
or objects, flew from Michigan over the tip of Ontario and western Lake Erie, and then the north northeast corner of Ohio, apparently landing in a densely wooded area about 30 miles south of Pittsburgh, Pa. Its passage was noted by a large number of people on the ground and by several experienced commercial and private pilots. Bits of it fell near Lapeer, Lorain County, Ohio, and near Midland and Kecksburg, Pa.
Something also blew up in the air over Lake St. Clair, east of Detroit-Windsor, rocking planes in the area with sharp shockwaves.
Pin-pointing these observations on the map shows that the object or objects passed in a
straight line from somewhat east of Flint, Mich., over Lake St. Clair to Oberlin and Elyria, near Cleveland, Ohio, in a southeast-by-southerly direction and then made a 25-degree turn to the East. From that point the line of travel was again straight via Midland to Kecksburg. There is no possibility of converting the course into any form of geometric curve. The fall of material on the ground pin-points the passage. And meteorites do not make abrupt turns in their direction of flight.
.....
Further, this "thing" was seen in northeast Indiana, a minimum of 120 miles southwest of its line of travel; over Erie, Penn., which is 95 miles northeast of said line; and in extreme western New York and northern West Virginia. So far no computation of the height at which the thing passed overhead has been made, and the only indication of its size was a statement by a lady in Elyria near Cleveland who saw it, or a part of it, fall into a wood where it set grass afire over a 1,000 ft area. She said it was as big as a volley-ball.
Thus, we do not know if it was possible for it to have been seen at these distances from its line of travel. But if it was indeed seen at these distances, a number of odd points arise. The exact time of the fall at Elyria was 4:44 p.m. Observation of it at Erie was at 4:50 p.m. the distance between the two points is 115 miles as the crow flies. However, there is no evidence that the thing passed directly over Erie; it was seen from there at that time and it may have been seen traveling its straight course which was just 95 miles southwest at its nearest point. This would be about Salem, Ohio. Salem is 70 miles from Elyria, so that the object took 6 minutes to travel 70 miles, or only 11.5 miles per minute.
Similarly, the nearest point to Indiana on the thing's line of travel is the town of Utica, Mich. about 25 miles east of Pontiac. This is just 95 miles from Elyria as the crow flies, so that, if this was the point where it was seen from Indiana - at precisely 4:40 - it took 4 minutes to cover the distance or about 23.3 miles per minute.
.....
Now, should it have been spotted from either or both northeast Indiana and Erie, either before or after its nearest point of passage, the distances, and thus the speeds, would vary but within only small absolute amounts. Compounding the two distances we find that the thing appears to have traveled along at about 16.5 miles per minute.
So, this thing was a meteor; was it?
The minimum speed of a meteor ever recorded as 27,000 miles per hour and the maximum 144,000 miles per hour, which is to say 7.5 miles per second and 40 miles per second respectively. Since when have meteors or bolides, which is the name now given to meteors that break up in our atmosphere, been ambling along at 16 miles per minute?
As ever, almost within the hour of the observations, a professor of something or other announced that it was probably a meteor or bolide. In this case it was Dr. Paul Annear of Baldwin-Wallace College, and right behind him came a confirmation of his belief by the Pentagon. Yet, though bolides land almost every day and are ignored or at the most searched for only by enthusiastic amateurs, great contingents of specialists from the armed forces were on the scenes of the falls almost as fast as the state police.
One of the military "spokesmen" stated for the record: "We don't know what we have here (but) there is an unidentified flying object in the woods." Neither meteorites nor bolides fly; they fall. What's more, they don't just drift in at 16.5 miles per minute.
.....
Then, apart from the odd report of two piles of shredded lead in strips only l-16lh of an inch thick having been found at Lapeer, Mich., where the thing was first observed to drop something, and the 1,000-foot fire near Elyria, and the dropping fiery ball and smoke arising from a wood at Kecksburg, there are still other curious features of the whole performance.
Most notable is that meteors are usually first seen between heights of 30 to 60 miles but cease to glow at about 10 miles. But the thing didn't glow steadily, as it appeared and disappeared as it zoomed cross-country. And if it were below 10 miles, glowing or not glowing, it could not have been seen from Indiana, Erie, West Virginia and western New York unless it were close upon all those points successively.
If it travelled along at only 16 miles per minute at, say, 51 miles up and dropped fiery bits to earth at the three points—Lapeer, Elyria, and Kecksburg— how did it make a 25-degree turn about Cleveland?
In fact the service spokesman was right. It was an object; it WAS flying, rather than falling; and it has NOT been identified.​

He does not describe going out and interviewing individual witnesses (at least he makes no mention of it and offers no names) and obtain detailed information (i.e azimuth/elevation) as expected by somebody investigating a fireball. This would be how you obtain a trajectory. Instead, as best one can tell, he just called the state policemen and then apparently took the rest from newspaper accounts to suggest the “landing points”. Compare that to the detailed legwork conducted by VDC/Krause and the group from the RASC. I leave it to the readers here, which group probably arrived at a more accurate assessment of object’s path.

BTW, not one shred of any of these fragments recovered turned out to be unusual or a meteorite. All other claims about fires (which usually are not caused by small meteorites) and such turned out to be completely unrelated to the fireball. Therefore, using them to plot the “landing points”, which are used to compute speeds and trajectory are completely invalid. Feel free to spin it however you wish but anybody who has bothered to investigate meteorite falls would laugh at such a methodology.

I am inclined to dismiss your assessment of his work as very probably unduly biased.

Feel free to do so and I do consider myself biased. I want to see real data used scientifically and not something that any amateur astronomer would recognize as completely worthless. Sanderson’s work, which you and Rudiak seemed to consider being some detailed investigation that verifies the Kecksburg trajectory, wasn’t that detailed at all. It can not be used as a rebuttal to the work by Chamberlain and Krausse. I put greater weight on the effort of the scientists who actually had their work reviewed and published in an astronomical journal.

 

[Rramjet]

I will, again, try to cut to the chase of Rramjet’s argument…

Yes, let’s do cut to the chase:

It still does not prove…

You are wanting “proof” and will accept nothing short of “proof” - and on the basis of an absence of “proof” - you will deny the whole thing. However, in holding to such a strict standard you attempt to deny the rest of us the use of a weight of evidence.

For you, it seems the only “proof” you will accept is a presentation of the actual object. That is of course your prerogative, however in the absence of the actual object, it is not illegitimate for the rest of us to draw tentative conclusions based on the fit of the of the evidence to the claim that something fell into the woods outside Kecksburg in the evening of December 9, 1965.

The principal arguments you present to refute that claim is that Chamberlain and Krause (Dec 1965) contended the trajectory was inconsistent with a landfall in Kecksburg, that allegedly the military did not have the resources to get to Kecksburg within a few hours of the incident and that allegedly no eyewitnesses at the time stated an object was recovered.

Against those arguments I have contend first that Chamberlain and Krause did not report an assessment of error margins in their paper concerning their trajectory analysis - and that once those error margins are accounted for (eg; Rudiak - http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43), the Kecksburg trajectory is in fact not able to be ruled out. The photos used in both analyses can be found here (http://www.roswellproof.com/Kecksbur...il_photos.html) and they too seem to support the contention that the fireball was moving at an angle away from the observers (in direct opposition to Chamberlain and Krause’s conjecture). One also must question why Chamberlain and Krause simply did not ask the two independent photographers (Wright and Champine) which direction they thought the fireball was headed when they took their photos! They were after all - as Chamberlain and Krause themselves contend - “in the best position to know”...

Furthermore, two other publications of the time (Sanderson (Mar 1966) and an article in Sky and Telescope (Feb 1966) also refute Chamberlain and Krausse’s assessment.

You have stated that we can simply ignore those separate publications because they were not peer-reviewed, but of course it does not take a peer review publication to note the flaws in another’s argument (as Rudiak has done) and moreover, if that really were the standard to be upheld by you, your very own comments and analysis would have to be dismissed out-of-hand as well!

Regarding your contention that there were no military bases nearby, I have listed a number of military bases that are indeed within 1 to 4 hours of Kecksburg – not the least of which is Wright Patterson (274 miles)… but of course there are others even closer from which resources could potentially have been drawn (Rickenbacker AFB – 212 miles; Army National Guard – 223 miles; Ohio Army National guard – 217 miles; National Guard – 215 miles; US Army Corp of Engineers – 228 miles; Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station – 66 miles; Fort Indiantown GAP – 182 miles; Tobyhanna Army Depot – 288 miles; Letterkenny Army Depot – 124 miles; Carlisle Barracks – 147 miles; Lockbourne AFB – 218 miles…). In short there is absolutely no shortage of places from which a military presence (including men and equipment) could have been sourced.

Interestingly, according to researcher Stan Gordon, after the “Unsolved Mysteries” show about the incident aired in 1990 (http://www.unsolved.com/ufo.html), he was contacted by a USAF officer who claimed he was at Lockbourne when a flat-bed with a large tarpaulin on the surface covering a conical object arrived and he was among those asked to stand guard and to “shoot anyone who got too close”. Apparently he was advised that the truck was bound for Wright Patterson (http://ufocasebook.com/Kecksburg.html). A contractor came forward to claim he saw the object at Wright Patterson.

The military denies having found any object. They do not specifically deny being there – just a denial of the scale of their presence and a denial that any object was found. There is no doubt however that the local police and fire brigades were present - and even those who deny the recovery of an object do not deny that (for example) armed police road blocks were set up and area searches were conducted (the Millars for example). We also know that the military has a documented track record of cover-up in these types of cases (eg; http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf). It is also informative in this regard to read Lee E. Heifrich’s (a partner in the law firm of Lobel, Novins & Lamont) statement on the FOIA case (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1815.htm).

Against the military denial we have the eyewitness testimony and the media reports of the time.

There were two known media reporters at the scene on the night in question. One was Robert Gatty from the Greensburg Tribune-Review; Gatty interviewed an number of witnesses at the time and based on his reporting the headlines in the newspaper the next day were "Unidentified Flying Object Falls near Kecksburg” and “Army Ropes off Area." Gatty provided a testimonial statement in 2003 which can be found here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1815.htm). There was also a Tribune photographer with Gatty at the time, Jim Downs, but it is unknown if any photographs were taken or what happened to them if they were.

The other reporter on the scene was John Murphy, a news director from WHJB radio. He was alerted to the incident by Frances Kalp, who phoned in to the Greensburg radio station at 6:30 pm. Murphy then phoned the police and then went to the scene to interview Kalp. Murphy, after being told by police on the scene that nothing was found was advised to visit their Greenburg Headquarters, whereupon doing so found the military already there. He was given permission to accompany the military in their search of the woods. He and the military returned to the scene but Murphy was however prevented from entering the woods with them. According to researcher Stan Gordon, Murphy’s (who has since died) former wife says that she was in radio contact with him from the site that day, and that he told her that he went down into the woods and saw the object (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1300.htm).

Then we have all the other eyewitnesses: There were of course many, many of those and there is no need to name them all here – suffice to say that they all support each other.

There are nevertheless also people from the area who claim that nothing occurred - but as far as anyone can tell, none of those detractors were actual witnesses to any of the events of that night (there are of course the Millars, who deny anything was found, but they were witnesses to a police roadblock/command post set up on the road outside their home – and of course that is all they were witness to).

One of the debunker arguments run by AstroP is that there are no existing reports of people at the time claiming an object was found. While that may be true, there was nothing really to tell at the time. The media reported the official line that nothing was found and that was essentially the end of the matter. Gatty moved on, Murphy died and it seems no-one else bothered to interview the residents of Kecksburg about the matter - and so they were basically, until a number of years later, left to argue it out among themselves. As John Sibal stated at a town hall meeting arranged by the Sci-Fi channel “See, you’re laughing,” Sibal said to Gumbel, citing ridicule as the reason he hadn’t come forward sooner (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1299.htm).

So that’s basically it. We have some flawed research by Chamberlain and Krause contending that nothing could have landed in Kecksburg and we have the official line that nothing was found even if it did. Against that we have the reporters and the eyewitnesses, who tell a different story. There’s nothing left to do but simply ask that people make up their own minds based on the evidence (much of which can be accessed in the articles linked in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7260850#post7260850). Missing from that post is the link to the Sci-Fi channel documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6105797502929375#).

 

[Astrophotographer]

As the we continue to go into this spiral, at least we are cutting to the chase.

For you, it seems the only “proof” you will accept is a presentation of the actual object. That is of course your prerogative, however in the absence of the actual object, it is not illegitimate for the rest of us to draw tentative conclusions based on the fit of the of the evidence to the claim that something fell into the woods outside Kecksburg in the evening of December 9, 1965.

But your claim was this was all a FACT that the military was involved in a UFO cover-up. Now we discover you can not prove that it was a FACT and are begging people to believe you and your UFO websites while ignoring the scientific studies done on the fireball and the reporting of what transpired that night in 1965.

The principal arguments you present to refute that claim is that Chamberlain and Krause (Dec 1965) contended the trajectory was inconsistent with a landfall in Kecksburg, that allegedly the military did not have the resources to get to Kecksburg within a few hours of the incident and that allegedly no eyewitnesses at the time stated an object was recovered.

Any you have yet to provide evidence/proof:

1) That Chamberlain and Krause were wrong (only that they might have been wrong based on two very biased arguments that really never bothered to look at all the data from that night..

2) That any of these "new" witnesses actually described the events they state happened now were telling the same story back in 1965. Their stories did not appear until decades later. Can you even demonstrate that any of them were even present in Kecksburg on that evening?

All your arguments are based not on what was recorded at the time but on the story being told decades later on all these UFO websites, which seem to be your sole source of information. You have not bothered to look beyond what they tell you. If this is your idea of "research", then people in this forum begin to question your claim to being an actual scientist at all.

One also must question why Chamberlain and Krause simply did not ask the two independent photographers (Wright and Champine) which direction they thought the fireball was headed when they took their photos! They were after all - as Chamberlain and Krause themselves contend - “in the best position to know”....

Obviously you have not read everything written about the event. Both of them submitted their fireball reports (one even submitted a letter and prints to Bluebook) and Chamberlain/Krause went to the sites with a transit to compute these azimuths. I suppose you are going to say, "but they did not say that in the journal". However, VDC did mention it in the State of Michigan Geology survey #5 "Meteorites of Michigan" 1968.

"The author and two associates, David Krausse and Ralph Johnson, went to both these locations and made transit readings based on the photographs...."

As I previously noted, just because it was not stated in the one document you select does not mean it did not occur. They obviously did not just sit at a desk to compute their values, they did real legwork to determine the trajectory.
For somebody who has continously claimed he wants science to investigate UFOs, it is most interesting that you discard the scientific process, which produced this report, because a non-scientist (Rudiak), who has a strong belief in UFO crashes, and a scientist (Sanderson), who had a strong belief in exotic claims (one might say "Extraordinary" claims) like dinosaurs living in the Congo, say so.

You have stated that we can simply ignore those separate publications because they were not peer-reviewed, but of course it does not take a peer review publication to note the flaws in another’s argument (as Rudiak has done) and moreover, if that really were the standard to be upheld by you, your very own comments and analysis would have to be dismissed out-of-hand as well!

It only takes the will to believe to accept these arguments as being valid even though they prove absolutely nothing and only suggest their might be another trajectory. The actual data supports the trajectory of VDC and Krause. If you can show the data does not (other than saying their is potential for error), then you have an argument. You have yet to do so.

Regarding your contention that there were no military bases nearby, I have listed a number of military bases that are indeed within 1 to 4 hours of Kecksburg – not the least of which is Wright Patterson (274 miles)… but of course there are others even closer from which resources could potentially have been drawn (Rickenbacker AFB – 212 miles; Army National Guard – 223 miles; Ohio Army National guard – 217 miles; National Guard – 215 miles; US Army Corp of Engineers – 228 miles; Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station – 66 miles; Fort Indiantown GAP – 182 miles; Tobyhanna Army Depot – 288 miles; Letterkenny Army Depot – 124 miles; Carlisle Barracks – 147 miles; Lockbourne AFB – 218 miles…). In short there is absolutely no shortage of places from which a military presence (including men and equipment) could have been sourced.

All many miles away (definitely beyond your three hour radius) and many of these bases did not contain the equipment described. To bring a personnel carrier (i.e. tracked vehicle) to Kecksburg would require a specific unit that had such a vehicle. The Pittsburgh Air reserve station is a joke. I am not sure what the air crews of a few F-102s could have done and why they were to abandon their air defense aircraft to go chase a UFO. What this shows is you are trying to use a shotgun approach. NONE of these units you mention have any record or even rumor of such an activity. Suggesting they could have done it shows an ignorance of military capabilities. Of course, that has been the standard for your Kecksburg research. Just proclaim it and, therefore, it must be true.

The bottom line here is that you can't prove any of your claims of FACTS regarding Kecksburg. The only FACT is that none of these stories about a crashed acorn being found and carted away by the military surfaced until decades after the event. This case should be discarded because it is not evidence of anything except how myths can be created.