…since the evidence is the same as people who claim they saw pink unicorns, they require better evidence than what you have presented to be more compelling.
The evidence for UFOs is
not the “same” as for pink unicorns: For UFOs we have multiple eyewitness, radar, verified film and photographic and physical trace evidence… I challenge you to produce
any of that type of evidence for pink unicorns…
…and you accuse
me of avoiding other’s questions and arguments…
You have yet to provide any verifiable data that refutes that trajectory.
C&K’s direction was taken from a triangulation using the photos. However, as Rudiak noted, a mere +/- 0.6 degree error would be sufficient to change the trajectory toward kecksburg. All it would take would be for the assumed photo locations to be out by mere inches… other potential errors are also not accounted for - perhaps a small scaling error of the photos themselves, a small drift of the vapour trail, a small imprecision in the estimated time between photos… all that means is that C&K’s trajectory
cannot be taken as accurate,
especially as all the other evidence in the case seems to
refute their trajectory.
Some of that other evidence is in the geographical locations where the object was sighted (southern Canada, Lapeer County (Mi), south-east Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania). If C&K were correct, we should have expected reports instead from Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana…
Only one document mentions it “landing in acme”.
And according to the Blue Book files, at least one military response team was sent from Oakland radar base to Acme to investigate…
Exactly, what maps are you using or is this some new form of geography? The end point by VDC and Krause was not over Lake Michigan (not even close).
Oops, yes, I got the end of the wrong lake… According to C&K the object would have landed off the southern end of Lake St Clair (point E in their diagram - (
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1967JRASC..61..184C/0000184.000.html)
p.188) …which of course makes your statement…
It is over the north-western end of Lake Erie on the shores of Ontario.
…
also completely erroneous! …see how easy it is to get mixed up AstroP…
Interestingly, although C&K state that Campine took his photos “from a point about two miles east of Pontiac” – the location they pinpoint on their diagram (2) is actually 3 miles east northeast of Pontiac (looks like Featherstone Road to the east of the Chrysler Freeway). Now there is a whole
mile of error in their locations just for
starters!
Oh and if you want more error, here’s a small tip for you …look up their latitudes and longitudes (p.189) in Google Earth and compare them with their diagram (p.188)…
Lake Michigan is almost two hundred miles to the west of Detroit and the area that the trajectory was computed.
Yes, I have conceded my error there… will you concede your own?
From Detroit (depending on what part of the greater Detroit area you are looking at), the bearing to the endpoint can be anywhere between ESE (about 100 deg) to South (about 180 deg). That is within the region of an observer from Detroit.
I am not sure on what you base those bearings, but if you take
both C& K’s endpoint
and the Kecksburg endpoint, from Detroit, they are
both southeast (135 degrees)!
In reference to the memo here (
http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693404):
Of course, we are also left with the fact that this may have been Compine since it mentions the photograph.
One might suppose it to be so, but if so, according to C&K, when he observed the object, he was “2 miles east” of Pontiac. This would mean his 105 degree bearing (in this memo) and his 110 degree bearing (in his letter -
http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693545) does not support C&K either.
Campine seems to have contacted bluebook about the event and this may have been his phone call. He wrote his letter on 11 December so it seems likely he called them so he could discover where to send the photographs.
If this was Campine “calling it in”, then the memo would refer to “
a” photo (that he took and is now informing us that he has for our information if we want). Instead the memo refers to “
the” photo, as if the person who typed the memo already knew of the existence of a photo…
His estimate has been shown to be incorrect by the transit readings of VDC/Krause. He may have been a bit disoriented (he was driving at the time and may have overestimated the angular distance traveled) when he made his estimates.
He may have been, but equally, so may have C&K.
I stated:
According to that scenario the meteor would have to be heading directly away from you to allow such a mistake as to perceive it as coming toward you. However, if you took a photo of it, the vapour trail would be completely (or very near to) vertical. That is NOT what we observe in the photos that were taken. What we do see in those photos is the vapour trail heading across (and seemingly away from) the line of sight of the observer. An estimate of general direction is then most certainly possible.
You fail to understand the concept. The observer can not make an accurate determination of direction based on observations from one point. All one can do is determine site lines.
Look up at the next airplane that flies over AstroP and then come back and tell me you cannot tell in which direction it is flying…
BTW, the fireball debris trail was not what the witness described in his statement. He described the observation of the fireball. As for the fireball train, the actual size of the terminal point was about a ½ degree based on the angles computed between A and B. The A point width was about the same. So how could the witness determine direction based on the width of the train at the key points was about the same apparent angular dimension? It seems to me they indicate a path parallel to the observer based on your logic.
…across the line of sight of the observer, heading generally away from the observer…
It ignores the other observations by many of the observers in Ohio and Pennsylvania stated it was to the north or northwest – see my collection of newspaper reports on my website.
This is the location of the observed “fireball train” (the debris or vapour trail). This does not tell us the direction. In fact, if a direction could have been determined from those observations, then C&K would have noted it – oh…they did not interview the pilots …and what
about that Air Canada flight…
It also ignores the observations by all the observers interviewed by Douglas, Lee, Wetherhill, VDC, and Krause.
How so? Just because you
say it does?
It seems to me that it was an observation an error but you seem to think such a data point is valid. Where is your error analysis with that?
It is merely one among the many eyewitness reports. I included it because at the point in time we were specifically discussing the Blue Book files. It is one contained in that file.
And I keep referring you to the collection of reports on my webpage.
…and you keep
failing to provide the link (or links) when you reference it…!
Which”reports”?
I also point you towards the actual scientific investigations conducted at the time. Sky and Telescope describes the efforts of Dr. G. W. Wetherhill, a geology professor from UCLA. He cites 23 pilot reports from the area. When he plotted their sighting lines on a map, he states:
“When all the bearings were plotted on a map, they intersected in approximately a 300 square-mile area between Toledo Ohio and Pelee island. This agreed with the sightings from the Cleveland area.
The next day, I drove further west to the cities of Fremont, Sandusky, and Port Clinton Ohio….several reports placed the fireball to the north. One observer at Port Clinton – on the south shore of Lake Erie -also saw the fireball to the north, indicating quite clearly that no impact occurred south of the lake.
(Sky and Telescope February 1966 page 79)
Sure, but what about the
direction it was travelling?
”The path of the fireball extended roughly from northwest to southeast, passing well south of Pontiac and Detroit, Michigan and ending in or near the western part of Lake Erie.”(p.78)
This directly contradicts C&K’s assessment…
Then we have the comments by Dr. Douglas of the RASC:
“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.”
(Appendix 1 of the April 18, 1966 proceedings of the tenth meeting of the associate committee of Meteorites)
So who has made the correct assessment? All of them seem to be interviewing dozens of witnesses, yet coming to different conclusions…
VDC and Krause state they received detailed questionnaire forms back from 66 observers. All of these appeared to agree with the endpoint computed from the photographs.
…so they say…
I think that is more than adequate to back up the claim that the end point of the meteor was on the western end of Lake Erie near the endpoint computed by VDC and Krause.
You may think that.
No, it is not “nitpicking”. You claimed all these documents supported a “landfall” at Acme. Most just describe people seeing the fireball from the area of Acme. There is a significant difference. Of course, we also know that Bluebook concluded there was no landfall after receiving reports back from Oakdale, PA.
I made no such claim. I stated “
Clearly those at Blue Book were operating under the impression that Acme (just four miles south of Kecksburg) was the location of a potential landfall.”
…and Blue Book “concluded” nothing – it merely collated some of the reports and phone calls.
It is a FACT that the unit reported finding nothing.
So it is…
It is not a FACT that what these witnesses claim to have happened over a decade later actually occurred.
True enough…
Their stories were not told in 1965.
Their stories were not
reported in 1965…
The news reporters made no mention of what their stories described in 1965.
The news reporters made
only partial mention of what their stories described in 1965…
Additionally, we can not even prove that some of the key witnesses (like Bulebush, Romansky, Betters) with exotic stories were actually present at the scene or even in Kecksburg that day.
We cannot “prove”
any of the witnesses were where they said they were – except for Gatty, Murphy and Mrs Kalp of course.
They are not mentioned as being present in the media, they did not make public statements, and they did not record anything in personal diaries.
… except for Gatty, Murphy and Mrs Kalp of course.
“all over the compass”??? That is quite the exaggeration don’t you think?
Have a look at your own citations above…
You have cherry picked a few points but ignored all the scientific investigations done at the time, which reveal that a majority of the witnesses state that your claim is not true.
No, the investigators examined the eyewitness reports and concluded a number of different things based on those reports…
Perhaps you can list all these observations that support your trajectory and refute the dozens (if not hundreds) of witnesses who were interviewed by VDC, Krause, Lee, Douglas, and Wetherhill.
I am only going on what witness statements we do have available indicate – I cannot make a determination about those that we do not have access to.
Mrs. Kalp reported seeing the fireball towards Kecksburg. That is a northwest direction (about 340 degrees azimuth). The same general direction of the end point computed by VDC and Krause (about 305-310 degrees).
Mrs Kalp saw it
travelling in what direction?
You have repeatedly made the claim that I withhold information in order to deceive those reading what I wrote. That is stating that I am lying about what these sources state.
I have merely noted that you seem singularly unwilling to provide the links to your sources – what you (or others) make of that is up to you.
A. It is not a vapor trail like an airplane’s contrail. It is dust/debris trail. It is completely different and when you understand that, you will understand why your logic is flawed by trying to believe that it will be constant size.
Dust trail, debri trail, vapour trail, fireball train … a rose by any other name… and what is that about “constant size”? Who is saying anything about “constant size”? Certainly I have made no mention of any such thing…
B. The witness was reporting the location the meteor disappeared in and not the termination point of the debris/dust trail. Therefore, he was describing a point source.
What witness? You have lost me I am afraid…
How do you know they totally ignored any potential measurement error? Did you talk to VDC? Did you read the second part of this report? Did you read the supporting documentation that accompanied the finished document? Just because you and Rudiak make the uninformed opinion that they did not consider measurement error does not mean that was the case.
VDC&K’s direction was taken from a triangulation using the photos. However, as Rudiak noted, a mere +/- 0.6 degree error would be sufficient to change the trajectory toward kecksburg. All it would take would be for the assumed photo locations to be out by mere inches… other potential errors are also not accounted for - perhaps a small scaling error of the photos themselves, a small drift of the vapour trail, a small imprecision in the estimated time between photos… all that means is that VDC&K’s trajectory
cannot be taken as accurate,
especially as all the other evidence in the case seems to
refute their trajectory.
Wrong. Absence of seismic data tells you that if the meteor was close or not. There were seismographs in Cleveland (John Carroll university) and Penn State college at the time. If they recorded nothing, it indicates the meteor did not have a seismic event in that area and the meteor was not close. The lack of such a record verifies that VDC/Krause were correct in that the meteors endpoint was near the seismograph and not over or near Kecksburg So, it can tell us something other than the time of the event no matter how much you want to make it appear unimportant.
A meteor enters the atmosphere travelling incredibly fast. Atmospheric pressure slows it down. At some point its speed will enable a seismic event and also at some point it will be too slow to create a seismic event. The fact that a seismic event was recorded at one station only tells us that
at the time it passed over (near, in the vicinity of) that station it was travelling fast enough to create a seismic event. Critically, it does
not tell us anything about direction (or whether it passed over, near or in the vicinity of other stations further along the trajectory).
How do you know they did not mention a measurement error in their supporting documentation?
You are not familiar with peer-review publication protocols are you…
What a bunch of nonsense. You don’t have the sighting data and have completely dismissed the data that was collected in favor of a few data points that you cherry picked to support your conclusion.
Nor do you … and I am only going on what witness statements we do have available indicate – I cannot make a determination about those that we do not have access to.
Wrong. You are referring to stories told by people who claimed they were there and did not start telling this story until a decade or more later.
According to
those who were there at the time there was a military presence and some of those witnesses claim the military was there in some force. People were prevented from entering the cordoned off area and apparently a fence was cut so that access to the site could be gained. Some of those witnesses also claim that something that was conical or acorn-like in shape was found and carted away by the military.
You have to demonstrate there were units available at the time and that they could reach the location in the time required. As a result, you have them materializing out of and disappearing into thin air as if they waved a magic wand. The same could be said for the lack of any documentation or evidence of their passage in Kecksburg. The only evidence is that the radar squadron was involved.
I have noted
numerous military bases in the vicinity. Are you claiming that
none of them had the capability to supply men and equipment?
Apparently, you did not read Kean’s IUR (Volume 30 No. 1 page 8) article on the subject. She states she talked to several members of the squadron and all stated they found nothing. So, this verifies what is stated in the official record. They also seemed not to notice any military force other than their own unit. I suppose you will now say they were lying to hide the truth?
“Several”? I thought you claimed there were only three? Indeed Keane notes there were only three. One of the unit members Keane cites as stating nothing was found, but also that he was not there… Indeed, Keane was only able to find one of the unit who was actually there - and that person denied
all activity, including the presence of civilians! Interestingly that person claimed that “
He and three other members of the 662nd searched the woods…” …but that would make
four – contradicting official statements once again!
Keane also notes “
Another officer told me that there was no search at all…”… and then goes on to note conflicting claims from the officers about who was the Blue Book Liaison Officer at the time… One even claimed
he was – but has no memory of the event…
FGS RR I am not going to repost links for you every time. If you are not going to read them, I see no reason to post them. I suppose you are going to again claim that I am purposefully trying to hide information from everyone.
No, just seemingly unwilling to provide the
full information for others to assess…
These reporters stated in 1965 that nothing was found. What they say today either demonstrates they lied or were incompetent in 1965 or are being influenced today by the popular myth. The eyewitnesses you are describing (and I notice you fail to identify them) never told this story in 1965 and did not start telling the tale until 1979 or so. Can you identify each witness, when they started telling their story, and what story they told?
Clearly many of the witnesses supporting the “Kecksburg crash” are identified – what about the witnesses for your side of the story?
And in the same article, you fail to mention that he states the state police had roped off the area and not the army.
I provided quotes form
both of Gatty’s articles… and those quotes
explicitly provide the information you say I “did not mention”…
Of course in the other article by Gatty for the city edition he mentions being only stopped by a volunteer fireman and not some massive military force where guns are drawn and lives threatened. More magic wand waving.
“Guns drawn and lives threatened”? Your hyperbole precedes you AstroP…
Young did not make a transcript. He only listened to the program and reported its contents. If the program was as convincing as you claim, then the transcript and entire recording would be readily available. For some reason nobody seems to present it. It is probably the same reason they don’t post the part of the December 10 edition and subsequent accounts describing the news paper's staff findings, which states nothing was ever found. When Young posted his comments on UFO updates, Gordon did not argue against these points. There must have been a reason.
Sure, it’s a grand conspiracy, involving both debunkers and proponents, to keep the transcripts (and other information) from the public… “For some reason nobody seems to present it”… “There must have been a reason” …it seems to me that everyone is trying to “point score” rather than expose all the information available…
We can continue this circular argument ad infinitum but I just don’t see any point as it now accomplishes very little. You bring so little to the table other than basically parroting what all these UFO websites tell you.
If you say so…
It means that we don't have an explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.
