UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

“Snipping” away sections of my argument that you cannot refute may be another way of looking at the same thing.

Nope. My argument stands. I just am not going waste space repeating it. It is convincing enough the first, second, or third time around. I don’t have to keep convincing myself by repeating it.

How did you refute the fact that no error analysis was conducted and that potential measurement errors could cast doubt on the calculated trajectory – especially as we note that in their diagram the location of Campine was out by about 1 mile and that they had mixed up their labelling of Points A & B… Further noting that Campine himself (who was “best qualified to judge”) stated that the trajectory was 110 degrees (as opposed to C&K’s 39 degrees) and that the Canadian Airlines passenger saw the object while looking east from a position south of Pittsburgh…

Now you have me pointing out the errors, which really isn’t too hard.

The azimuth value of 110 degrees does not point towards Kecksburg but much further east (towards the Pennsylvania/Ohio border near Erie). So, Campine’s observations can’t even support your trajectory. Additionally, you seem to be confusing an observation of azimuth from one location with true direction of travel but I am, once again, repeating myself that you have problems understanding all these concepts.

BTW, how do you know that the Canadian airlines plane was SOUTH of Pittsburgh? How far south? Can you give us a precise location? If it was 50 miles south of Pittsburgh, then it points away from Kecksburg. Additionally, the runway is east-west, which means the plane at final approach has to maneuver in that direction to line up on the runway. It could easily have been east or west of Pittsburgh. There is no reliable data to indicate the location, which makes your east direction basically worthless as an observation.

However, if (according to you) no single observer can tell which direction something is travelling, then collating a whole group of erroneous trajectory estimates will not (can not and never will) amount to an accurate estimate!

That is the beauty of using multiple observations. It is a case of "the more the merrier". The erroneous observations eventually drop out (Again see Frank Drake's article in UFOs: A scientific debate as well as the link below) and a reasonable trajectory can be determined. Your logic is underwhelming.

However, just to prove that I am not wrong on this concerning single station observations, I suggest you read the following web page from a meteorite impact/recovery group in Canada. The author is Jeremy Tatum, who is emeritus in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Victoria (he even has an asteroid named after him!):

http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/trajectory.htm

“I have hitherto described how to determine the atmospheric trajectory and related quantities from two witnesses, which is the absolute minimum number of witnesses necessary to determine the trajectory. (In a separate document in the MIAC archives I have explained in detail why it is impossible to determine, even approximately, the direction of motion of a fireball from observations made from a single station, in spite of regular claims to have done so).”

In another article http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JRASC..99..177T/0000177.000.html he wrote on page 178:

"It is, however, a geometric fact that in general it is not possible, even in the roughest approximation, to determine the direction of motion of a fireball from observations from a single station." (he goes into detail about what he means by "in general" and it does not apply in your case)

So, I have some scientific support for my claim about trajectory determination. Where is yours?

However Okay, so people were contacting the local media (phoning in to radio stations and newspapers) and saying what? Obviously they must have been reporting that something came down near Acme… there must have been (indeed there was) the odd report of debris from other locations, but for the interest to centre on Acme, that is where the majority of reports (made at the time) must have placed it. Yet you maintain that no reports of anything coming down in the Kecksburg/Acme area were received in 1965…

Kalp thought she saw smoke coming from the direction of Kecksburg. This happened to be in the general direction that the debris trail (i.e. smoke) was visible. The 1965 sources make it clear how the story got started.

“they” cordoned the place off and later informed the media that nothing was found - and the media duly reported that nothing was found.

“They” included the state police, the fire department and the members of the radar squadron. It is also includes the next day’s check by the media, who could find no evidence of anything landing (I posted a quote from a local media previously and Bob Young writes the 11th December Greensberg paper stated this as well). Did the military make all the damage caused by their retrieval and the object's passage magically disappear in only a few hours?

And so over what is the distance can it no longer be heard?

I thought you were the scientist. It depends on the magnitude of the initial sound, the atmosphere, and distance among other things. I suggest you look it up. Dr. Tatum mentions it somewhat in one of the articles.

From your witnesses alone “The firehouse was open and people jammed the social club” – that apparently was unusual activity enough to comment on… the Millars observed a Police/Fire roadblock on the road outside their property …so there was plenty of unusual activity reported – there are no reports (from the time) of anything being found.

If you classify having some beers at the firehouse after tramping around the woods and the state police trying to organize a search as “unusual”, I guess it is. I see no mention of the Army arriving in force, threatening civilians, and using large military equipment to retrieve anything.

You speculate on the type and mobility of the necessary equipment – a couple of jeeps (or even cars) and a small flatbed truck would have been all that was necessary…

Really? How many people are you bringing to this party? A squad is not enough based on what the myth says. They describe a large force that equates to a company or platoon (30-100 men). For that you will need more than a few jeeps.
Additionally, list this “small flatbed truck” used by the military in 1965. Of course, Romansky et. al., among other things, describe a wrecker, a personnel carrier, and a huge flat bed trailer that would be pulled by a semi-tractor. All military vehicles of this type have very wide wheel bases that exceed the width limit set at the time (I believe it was 96 inches) for road use. Again, we need those permits.

More snipping so I don’t repeat myself.

Something unusual occurred… the reports of the time indicate that much at the very least. The eyewitnesses who were there at the time report unusual activity. All that remains is to decide whether the reports of an object being recovered are believable in the face of official denials. The bottom line is that most everything else is not actually in dispute.

So we are now just convinced something “unusual” occurred instead of an actual craft from space that was whisked away by the Army? Of course, it was not the usual routine for Kecksburg to have the fire department tramping through some local woods on a quiet Thursday night looking for something that supposedly landed there or was it? To make Kecksburg into something more than a search that found nothing is just wishful thinking based on a belief in the myth that was created by eager UFOlogists trying to cement themselves in UFO folklore.

 

[ufology]

To make Kecksburg into something more than a search that found nothing is just wishful thinking based on a belief in the myth that was created by eager UFOlogists trying to cement themselves in UFO folklore.

To interject here on this one point. It seems to me that the Kecksburg case had less to do with ufologists trying to "cement themselves into ufolore" and more to do with the local newspaper wanting to sell copies, and later by some television producers ( I think it was Sightings ) who wanted to create an episode. So I think it was more media hype than ufologists when it came to cementing it in ufolore.

What was the Kecksburg object? I dunno ... all the recreations I've seen make it look like a giant acorn, sort of like a reentry capsule. Maybe the weird writing on it was Cyrillic, or was there some reason for ruling that out? I haven't reviewed the case in quite a while.

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

To interject here on this one point. It seems to me that the Kecksburg case had less to do with ufologists trying to "cement themselves into ufolore" and more to do with the local newspaper wanting to sell copies, and later by some television producers ( I think it was Sightings ) who wanted to create an episode. So I think it was more media hype than ufologists when it came to cementing it in ufolore.

I disagree. It was Stan Gordon, who was basically a nobody in UFOlogy, who started all of this in the late 1980s. Like many UFOlogists looking for "the big one", he managed to sell his idea to "Unsolved mysteries" and create a myth out of nothng more than rumors told decades after the event. The media hype came later.

What was the Kecksburg object? I dunno ... all the recreations I've seen make it look like a giant acorn, sort of like a reentry capsule. Maybe the weird writing on it was Cyrillic, or was there some reason for ruling that out? I haven't reviewed the case in quite a while.

The problem is (and what this discussion is all about) is that there never was any record of an "object" being found. The recovery of something is a myth told over a decade later by a few people who managed to tell their stories to Gordon (and a few others) and convince them that it was "the Roswell of the east". Like Roswell, the myth has begun to overshadow what was recorded as to have actually happened in 1965.

 

[RoboTimbo]

To interject here on this one point. It seems to me that the Kecksburg case had less to do with ufologists trying to "cement themselves into ufolore" and more to do with the local newspaper wanting to sell copies, and later by some television producers ( I think it was Sightings ) who wanted to create an episode. So I think it was more media hype than ufologists when it came to cementing it in ufolore.

What was the Kecksburg object?

Reading Astrophotographer's posts might give you a clue to the bolded part. I would hate to think that his superb and meticulous research had been for naught to every [person who believes in extraterrestrial UFOs].

I dunno ... all the recreations I've seen make it look like a giant acorn, sort of like a reentry capsule. Maybe the weird writing on it was Cyrillic, or was there some reason for ruling that out? I haven't reviewed the case in quite a while.

j.r.

Yes, shame on the History Channel for leading their viewers down this path of wondering what it was rather than whether it was.

 

[wollery]

And still no response.

Anyone would think that you were avoiding the issue.

You still haven't responded to this post of mine regarding the paper by C&K.

There is no evidence that the White Sands scientists did not account for error margins. All we have is a summary report which states their findings in point form (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html). For anyone wanting the analytical detail concerning how they arrived at their conclusions, including an error analysis, one would need to refer back to the full report. It is simply incomprehensible that any scientist conducting a measurement analysis would not also include an assessment of measurement error. Clearly C&K did not do that – and they should have - but there is absolutely no evidence that the White Sands scientists did not. Indeed, given their job requirements, that of computing test rocket trajectories, for them not to conduct error analyses would be a dereliction of duty and would have seen them out of the job long before they conducted the analysis in question.

It's incomprehensible that any scientist would fail to do it, and yet here we are talking about scientists not doing it.

You can't have it both ways, either scientists do fail to conduct proper error analyses, or they don't. If they do (as you argue C&K do) then you cannot also argue that it is inconceivable that the White Sands scientists certainly would have performed such a calculation, and if you argue that scientists always perform these calculations then we must assume that "C&K" did perform a proper error analysis, but for some reason it was deemed unnecessary for the final paper.

You argued some pages back that no reputable journal would knowingly publish a paper without a proper error analysis, and yet here we have a paper, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, so we must assume, per your argument, that such an analysis was done, but was either insignificant or irrelevant and was therefore removed for the sake of brevity and / or clarity.

Unless of course you were simply making pronouncements about what scientists and journals would do with no actual knowledge or supporting evidence for your assertions. In which case we can dismiss your unsubstantiated claims, and everyone reading can make what they will of you making such demonstrably erroneous claims.

Did C&K fail to perform an appropriate error analysis?

If so then that is proof that scientists don't always perform appropriate analyses, and your pronouncement that the scientists in the White Sands case most certainly would have because scientists always perform such calculations is unfounded.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that the White Sands scientists would have performed an error analysis, because scientists do always perform such analyses then you cannot argue that C&K didn't perform one, there must be another reason why it isn't included in the final paper.

Of course, both scenarios are problematic for you, because, according to you, no reputable peer-reviewed journal would publish a paper without such an error analysis, and yet here is a paper without one. Do you have any reasonable explanation that doen't undermine your previous assertions?

 

[Rramjet]

That is the beauty of using multiple observations. It is a case of "the more the merrier". The erroneous observations eventually drop out (Again see Frank Drake's article in UFOs: A scientific debate as well as the link below) and a reasonable trajectory can be determined. Your logic is underwhelming.

(…)

"It is, however, a geometric fact that in general it is not possible, even in the roughest approximation, to determine the direction of motion of a fireball from observations from a single station."

Let’s look at the logic of what you (but as we shall soon see, not Tatum) are contending.

A person sights a fireball and states it is going in a certain direction. Tatum says no, it’s impossible for that person to be able to accurately discern the direction.

Another person sights the same fireball from another location. Another direction is stated and again that direction – according to Tatum - could be incorrect.

More people add their testimonies and each time, whatever direction they provide, is actually useless, because they could be totally incorrect, no matter what they think – according to Tatum - they could be wrong.

That means of course that none, repeat none, of those multiple eyewitness estimates of direction can be assumed to be correct. So far so good. Now according to you, if you add all those potentially incorrect directions together, somehow a true direction will magically fall out… garbage. Consider: The length of that rod is indiscernible according to eyewitnesses. But when we add all their estimates together, the correct length will magically appear? No.

Despite your own contentions, that is not really what Tatum is saying. What he is saying is that with each directional estimate there will be an associated error margin – that is, it is simply not possible to make an estimate without there being some associated error. That is not to say the estimated direction will be incorrect – it could be perfectly correct – merely that, given the impossibility of making an estimate without at least some error, and given that the precise amount of potential error from any single observation is practically unknowable, it would be a grave mistake for any analyst to assume the stated directional estimate from any single observation wil be correct (it could be, but it cannot be relied upon to be). That is, an analyst should not rely on an estimate from a single observation to be accurate. What Tatum is then saying is that the more observations one has specifically defined data for (and that is a critical factor here, as we shall soon see), the smaller those error margins will become in proportion to the number of observations - until at some point you will be able to state a general direction.

The whole thing is an exercise in statistical analysis. Tatum is not stating that it is impossible (as you contend) for an eyewitness to be correct – for they could well be correct – rather, he is merely stating that in any subsequent trajectory analysis – it would be a mistake to assume the eyewitness to be correct because (“Eyewitness observations (…) have a very high degree of uncertainty associated with them. Errors of angular estimates can easily be ten degrees or more.” p.177). Interestingly Tatum then goes on to list the critical data that it would be necessary to obtain - from a single observer - to minimise error margins and thereby enable a calculation to be done (1st paragraph, second column, page 179) – and of course, the more eyewitnesses with such critical data available, the better the ultimate calculation will be (”I believe that, if there are witnesses scattered over a wide enough area, there is value in making the attempt – but only if it is done correctly and not by compounding the errors of observation with additional errors of measurement analysis” p.179) – and for that to be possible: “ Before I undertake any analysis I insist that all of the following conditions be satisfied:” (p177).

This is a far cry form your contentions, which seem to be a misreading of what Tatum is actually saying and once again points to the fact that (as is so often the case in these types of discussion) – a little knowledge (without full understanding) is a dangerous thing.

However Okay, so people were contacting the local media (phoning in to radio stations and newspapers) and saying what? Obviously they must have been reporting that something came down near Acme… there must have been (indeed there was) the odd report of debris from other locations, but for the interest to centre on Acme, that is where the majority of reports (made at the time) must have placed it. Yet you maintain that no reports of anything coming down in the Kecksburg/Acme area were received in 1965…

Kalp thought she saw smoke coming from the direction of Kecksburg. This happened to be in the general direction that the debris trail (i.e. smoke) was visible. The 1965 sources make it clear how the story got started.

Come on AstroP, the phones were running hot at the local radio station. Numerous people were phoning in with reports. Kalp was one of the first, but she was certainly not alone. The military presence, the cordoning off, the search …all that does not result from a single person calling in that they had merely seen “smoke”. After all single reports were coming in to various outlets stating other locations for potential debris falls – so why concentrate on the Acme/Kecksburg area to initiate real action on those reports – it can only have been because there was a preponderance of reports indicating that was the area in which to concentrate positive action.

“they” cordoned the place off and later informed the media that nothing was found - and the media duly reported that nothing was found.

“They” included the state police, the fire department and the members of the radar squadron. It is also includes the next day’s check by the media, who could find no evidence of anything landing (I posted a quote from a local media previously and Bob Young writes the 11th December Greensberg paper stated this as well).

Yes, the official line was that nothing was found and the media duly reported the official line.

Did the military make all the damage caused by their retrieval and the object's passage magically disappear in only a few hours?

What “damage”? Kalp’s son states a fence was cut to gain access, but that they repaired it the next day. No magic involved.

And so over what is the distance can it no longer be heard?

I thought you were the scientist. It depends on the magnitude of the initial sound, the atmosphere, and distance among other things. I suggest you look it up. Dr. Tatum mentions it somewhat in one of the articles.

So the discernment of a sonic boom is dependent on numerous factors and therefore you cannot state that the mere fact of a lack of registration from one particular location or other tells us any information about potential trajectories. Too many other factors other than the mere registration of a sound play a role.

If you classify having some beers at the firehouse after tramping around the woods and the state police trying to organize a search as “unusual”, I guess it is. I see no mention of the Army arriving in force, threatening civilians, and using large military equipment to retrieve anything.

Why do you persist in such unfounded misrepresentations? “The firehouse was open and people jammed the social club” – that was definitely unusual for a town with just 600 residents… the Millars observed a Police/Fire roadblock on the road outside their property – that would seem to be a most unusual activity. We know that (at the very least) members of the 662 radar squadron were sent to investigate – that is an un usual activity. All the sightseers, the cordons, the search …there was plenty of unusual activity reported a the time – there are no reports (from the time) of anything being found.

Really? How many people are you bringing to this party? A squad is not enough based on what the myth says. They describe a large force that equates to a company or platoon (30-100 men). For that you will need more than a few jeeps.
Additionally, list this “small flatbed truck” used by the military in 1965. Of course, Romansky et. al., among other things, describe a wrecker, a personnel carrier, and a huge flat bed trailer that would be pulled by a semi-tractor. All military vehicles of this type have very wide wheel bases that exceed the width limit set at the time (I believe it was 96 inches) for road use. Again, we need those permits.

Pure unfounded speculation AsrtoP. People observed a military presence, including vehicles. The precise number of men and the precise nature of those vehicles is contentious. It was a dark night, there was lots of activity and cordons. Lots of people everywhere sightseeing. In such circumstance details become confused. What you have to do then is step back and look at the bigger picture. There is no denying the activity and the cordons. There is no denying (at the very least) the presence of men from the 662 radar squadron. There is no denying the many sightseers. Eyewitnesses who were there at the time contend that something was found and hauled away by the military. The military deny it. It is not impossible for those eyewitnesses to be correct. Despite your protestations, there is no doubt that the military would have been capable of conducting such an exercise (permits or no). That’s the bigger picture.

So we are now just convinced something “unusual” occurred instead of an actual craft from space that was whisked away by the Army?

An “an actual craft from space”? I simply don’t know. However, we definitely do know “something unusual” occurred.

Of course, it was not the usual routine for Kecksburg to have the fire department tramping through some local woods on a quiet Thursday night looking for something that supposedly landed there or was it?

I don’t think it would be a usual activity for them at all. Do you?

To make Kecksburg into something more than a search that found nothing is just wishful thinking based on a belief in the myth that was created by eager UFOlogists trying to cement themselves in UFO folklore.

All that activity was not “wishful thinking” AstroP – it actually occurred. That much at the very least is indisputable. What is contentious is whether anything was found or not. The eyewitnesses say yes, the military say no. You have faith in the official/military version, but given the military track record of cover-up and obfuscation in such matters, I am not so blindly trusting. Does that mean I take as gospel the eyewitness testimony? No, not at all. All we can really say for sure is that there was a great deal of unusual activity. In my experience, there is rarely such “smoke” without a “fire” of some description. What that “fire” actually was, will depend on who you believe. You however believe there simply was no “fire”. I contend there was definitely a fire, but nevertheless that I simply don’t know what that “fire” was. You cannot simply dismiss all the eyewitness testimony with the wave of a hand, but I do recognise that details and memory become blurred over time. You persist in characterising the whole thing as a “myth”, but it should be obvious that one cannot so easily dismiss it - something unusual happened outside Kecksburg that night – precisely what though we may now never know.

Did C&K fail to perform an appropriate error analysis?

Obviously.

If so then that is proof that scientists don't always perform appropriate analyses, and your pronouncement that the scientists in the White Sands case most certainly would have because scientists always perform such calculations is unfounded.

Not at all. My contention was that there is no evidence that the White Sands scientist did not conduct an appropriate error analysis – whereas there is in the case of C&K. Indeed, given the status of the White Sands scientists and what they usually made assessments of (calculating test rocket trajectories/altitudes/locations etc), then it would be hard to imagine that they would omit the appropriate error analyses in conducting exactly the same calculations on the same parameters for potential UFOs – calculations that they were specifically expert in. That is simply what they do – it is a usual part of their SOP. One simply cannot say the same about C&K.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that the White Sands scientists would have performed an error analysis, because scientists do always perform such analyses then you cannot argue that C&K didn't perform one, there must be another reason why it isn't included in the final paper.

C&K’s paper is the final report. As such it should contain an assessment of potential measurement error factors. That is simply the nature of peer-reviewed scientific papers and it is extremely unusual that such a paper should be published that does not make such an accounting. On the other hand, all we have from White Sands is a summary report – outlining the principle conclusions only. The detailed calculations as to how they arrived at their conclusions we simply don’t have – but we can certainly assume that such would have been contained in their full report.

Of course, both scenarios are problematic for you, because, according to you, no reputable peer-reviewed journal would publish a paper without such an error analysis, and yet here is a paper without one.

All I am saying is that it is extremely unusual for a peer-reviewed paper to be published without an assessment of potential measurement errors. Obviously in this case it was published – but then one must question the diligence of the peer-review process – especially as there is at least one glaring and basic error in the paper – that of the incorrect labelling of points A and B – that was never picked up in that process – an error that even on the most cursory of readings is obvious. So what did the peer-reviewers actually do if they did not even pick up on that basic error?

 

[Locknar]

This thread has been removed from Moderated status; please remain mindful of your Membership Agreement - especially rule 0, rule 11, rule 12 (ie. keep it civil/polite, remain on topic, and address the argument).

Posted By: Locknar

 

[Astrophotographer]

Let’s look at the logic of what you (but as we shall soon see, not Tatum) are contending.

I would expect this kind of interpretation from you.

The whole thing is an exercise in statistical analysis.

You are completely ignoring the point by gravitating away from the statements he made about your clearly flawed belief that witnesses can easily determine the true direction of travel from one observation point.
What part of “I have explained in detail why it is impossible to determine, even approximately, the direction of motion of a fireball from observations made from a single station, in spite of regular claims to have done so” don’t you understand? He doesn’t say it is difficult or hard to do so. He is using the word “impossible”. The last time I looked the word “impossible” meant it “can’t be done”. Maybe you have a different definition?

Then there is this comment made on page 178 of the paper, which you conveniently overlooked. I originally posted the first part:

"It is, however, a geometric fact that in general it is not possible, even in the roughest approximation, to determine the direction of motion of a fireball from observations from a single station."

But I figured you would actually read the rest. Clearly you did not because he states:

“For example, many assume that, if a witness sees a fireball in the south moving from left to right, it must have been traveling west. This is not so at all: it might equally well be traveling almost due north or almost due south, with only a very small westward component.(The caveat “in general” above is to cover some special exceptions. For example, it is possible to deduce the direction from a single station if observations are made from radar, or photographically with a rotating shutter. But it is not possible from eyewitness observations.)”

This is EXACTLY what I have been stating all along. A single station can not tell the true direction of a meteor. You, however, seemed to have been contending that the witness could easily determine the true direction of travel and have repeated it continuously. You have stated the azimuth given by one observer and the “diminishing” debris trail (even though I clearly pointed out that the debris trail changing size can be caused by several factors and not the one you chose to accept) in the photograph demonstrated that the meteor was heading southeast and REFUTED the NE trajectory computed by VDC and Krause from the photographs. It is clear from Tatum’s paper that this line of argument has no merit compared to the photographic evidence. It has always been a flawed argument and will remain so no matter how hard you try and spin it.
Your complete lack of understanding on the concept/subject is the problem. Any astronomer (amateur or professional) who has ever done anything with tracking down meteorites will agree with me and the statement by Tatum above. If you doubt it, feel free to email him yourself and argue with him endlessly that it is possible for a single witness to tell the true direction of flight of a meteor. You can put that on your to do list next to the paper you are going to write to an astronomical journal that states VDC and Krause were wrong and why.

Snip as we are now going in circles again. Kecksburg became an area of interest simply because it got the greatest media coverage (radio and, according to Gordon, TV) shortly after the fireball occurred. It is as simple as that.

Yes, the official line was that nothing was found and the media duly reported the official line.

Once again, it seems you are intent on doubting that nothing was found despite there being multiple sources (including the newspaper staff which went out and looked around the next day) stating nothing was found.

What “damage”? Kalp’s son states a fence was cut to gain access, but that they repaired it the next day. No magic involved.

Once again you are having problems with the facts. It is the Hays family and not the Kalp’s (BTW, Gatty interviewed Hays father in 1965 and supposedly told Gatty he saw nothing – the source is the late edition of the December 10 paper). However, to get a wrecker and flat bed into a ravine area to retrieve the acorn is going to take a lot more than cutting a fence. A lot more would be knocked down and torn up by such large military equipment. How do you get equipment into the ravine area? Did they simply levitate the “acorn” out? They are going to have to cut their way into the ravine since it was not easily visible from the field (otherwise everyone would have seen it). Then the tracks left by such heavy equipment would be obvious to everyone who went down there.
Then there are the claims of Bulebush (among others) where there was a gouge and the other claims that trees were damaged. All of these missed by the media the next day when they went snooping around in daylight. Once again, you need a magic wand for that to “disappear” so they would not be noticed.

So the discernment of a sonic boom is dependent on numerous factors and therefore you cannot state that the mere fact of a lack of registration from one particular location or other tells us any information about potential trajectories. Too many other factors other than the mere registration of a sound play a role.

Sigh…none of these factors (other than distance) are going to prevent the sound wave from reaching Cleveland if it could be heard from Detroit except for distance. Can you demonstrate that the atmosphere was significantly different in Cleveland and Pennsylvania than Detroit? Both had clear skies so clouds did not play a role. The most likely reason there was no seismographic data is that it was just too far from the epicenter of the sonic event. Can you present an alternate hypothesis that has equal or greater weight that can explain why the seismographs at Penn state and Cleveland did not record anything?

More snipping as you trying rebuild your case of “unusual” activity. The bottom line is there is no record of any military force other than the 662nd radar squadron.

Eyewitnesses who were there at the time contend that something was found and hauled away by the military.

All of these witnesses (It is important to note that some of these principle witnesses to the more exotic parts of the story can not even be proven to have been physically present that night) did not tell these stories until over a decade later. This story was NEVER told in 1965 and there are no personal journals, documents, or anything else from 1965 that supports this claim. That is enough to question their stories

Despite your protestations, there is no doubt that the military would have been capable of conducting such an exercise (permits or no). That’s the bigger picture.

The “big picture” is that it was not possible and I have explained why. There are just too many logistic and manpower issues for it to have occurred as outlined in the popular myth. As it was, it took several hours for a handful of techs from Oakdale to reach Kecksburg and they did not have to assemble anything other than the bodies and jump into one vehicle. You have yet to come up with sound arguments as to how it was possible for the men and equipment were be assembled, the convoy to made it to Kecksburg, locate the acorn, retrieve the acorn and leave in less than 12 hours. Perhaps you can present a case where such an operation was conducted under similar conditions as an example. After all, it appears that this must be a simple enough exercise to perform. I can give an example of such an effort but they took over a day to complete (see the crash of a top secret A-12 aircraft in Utah) and it was in open desert far away from prying eyes with an AFB nearby to supply the equipment (and there is a paper trail to prove they did it!). See http://www.dreamlandresort.com/pete/oxcart_down.html. Oh...and they left a lot behind showing they were there despite making an effort to hide the crash site!

You can keep spinning this any way you like but the Kecksburg acorn recovery can be viewed as folklore and mythology. The story told today was developed over several decades as people added their tidbits to the tale. What was an unsuccessful search for a a suspected meteorite fall in some woods by the state police, fire department, and a few AF personnel has “ballooned” into something extraordinary involving mythical army units/equipment that nobody can identify and nobody seemed to notice and report about in 1965. It has all the earmarks of myth/folklore. Unfortunately, you just can’t see it because you are blinded by your belief in these stories and belief that the government is covering up evidence of UFOs.

 

[Joecool]

I always thought that UFOs were simply secretive government aircraft that was being tested. It is why there is no conclusive evidence to show that UFOs are from other galaxies or universes. Of course now I'm a governmental conspiracy theorist.

 

[ufology]

I disagree. It was Stan Gordon, who was basically a nobody in UFOlogy, who started all of this in the late 1980s. Like Roswell, the myth has begun to overshadow what was recorded as to have actually happened in 1965.

Thanks Astro ... that is really interesting. I'll have to explore what you are saying further.

Just a note here though on it being hyped by the media before any UFO buffs. I just did a bit of review. The papers I'm referring to were published within a few days of it happening and tell of a "throng" of newspaper reporters seeking access to the site and witnesses. Years later a NASA press representative said it had been a Russian capsule ( As I had suspected ). Astronomers think it was a bolide, but that wouldn't lead to the area being cordoned off unless it had actually impacted there ... in which case something must have been there to cordon off around.

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just a note here though on it being hyped by the media before any UFO buffs. I just did a bit of review. The papers I'm referring to were published within a few days of it happening and tell of a "throng" of newspaper reporters seeking access to the site and witnesses. Years later a NASA press representative said it had been a Russian capsule ( As I had suspected ). Astronomers think it was a bolide, but that wouldn't lead to the area being cordoned off unless it had actually impacted there ... in which case something must have been there to cordon off around.

1. I am not sure what papers you are reading. Maybe you can provide me with the names because I have read dozens of papers from Pennsylvannia and outlying states and I don't remember reading anything about a "throng" of newspaper reporters seeking access to the site. There was some reporters trying to get access that evening but they were blocked by the state police/fire department (not the army). The next day, the media could come and go as they pleased into the area. There are photographs of this search in the afternoon papers (Uniontown Evening standard December 10). They announced they could find nothing.

2. The NASA press representative just parrotted a comment in the Cosmos 96entry that was made by Dr. David Williams at NDSC. He had modified the entry based on what he had learned from James Easton back in 1998 (and possibly due to communications with James Oberg, who seems to have first offered this explanation) with the following entry:

There is some speculation that the reentry of the Cosmos 96/Venera-type spacecraft was responsible for a fireball which was seen over southwestern Ontario, Canada and nine states from Michigan to New York and purported to have subsequently landed in Pennsylvania southeast of Pittsburgh near the town of Kecksburg (40.2 N, 79.5 W) on 9 December 1965 at 4:46 p.m. EST local time (21:46 UT). Uncertainties in the orbital information and reentry coordinates and time make it difficult to determine if this could have been the Cosmos 96 spacecraft.

There is no evidence that Cosmos 96 ever was involved at Kecksburg.

3. If you have been reading this exchange, the only reason that the woods were cordoned off was because the state police and fire department were searching the woods. You don't want bystanders getting involved in these things. Additionally, it was private property. I am sure the land owners would not want the entire town stomping on their property.

The bottom line is all the papers (including the ones that conducted a search the next day) stated nothing was found. As the state police captain was quoted as saying, "someone made a mountain out of a molehill".

 

[Rramjet]

You are completely ignoring the point by gravitating away from the statements he made about your clearly flawed belief that witnesses can easily determine the true direction of travel from one observation point.
What part of “I have explained in detail why it is impossible to determine, even approximately, the direction of motion of a fireball from observations made from a single station, in spite of regular claims to have done so” don’t you understand? He doesn’t say it is difficult or hard to do so. He is using the word “impossible”. The last time I looked the word “impossible” meant it “can’t be done”. Maybe you have a different definition?

Then there is this comment made on page 178 of the paper, which you conveniently overlooked. I originally posted the first part:

"It is, however, a geometric fact that in general it is not possible, even in the roughest approximation, to determine the direction of motion of a fireball from observations from a single station."

But I figured you would actually read the rest. Clearly you did not because he states:

“For example, many assume that, if a witness sees a fireball in the south moving from left to right, it must have been traveling west. This is not so at all: it might equally well be traveling almost due north or almost due south, with only a very small westward component.(The caveat “in general” above is to cover some special exceptions. For example, it is possible to deduce the direction from a single station if observations are made from radar, or photographically with a rotating shutter. But it is not possible from eyewitness observations.)”

You simply cannot have it both ways AstroP. If it is impossible for any single observer to so much as even estimate a direction – with a possibility of being 180 degrees wrong - then it is simply not possible (as you contend it is) to add a group of those observations together and have the true direction magically appear…

Of course that is not what Tatum is saying. Note Tatum’s language – he is not talking about the observers but the analysts!

“I have explained in detail why it is impossible to determine, even approximately, the direction of motion of a fireball from observations made from a single station, in spite of regular claims to have done so”

WHO is claiming to “have done so”? Analysts! Analysts have claimed to have determined direction from a single observation and Tatum is saying that it is not possible to do so! Consider:

"It is, however, a geometric fact that in general it is not possible, even in the roughest approximation, to determine the direction of motion of a fireball from observations from a single station."

WHO is doing the “determining”? It is the analysts of course! A further clue to that is in the following (which you have quoted above):

“(The caveat “in general” above is to cover some special exceptions. For example, it is possible to deduce the direction from a single station if observations are made from radar, or photographically with a rotating shutter. But it is not possible from eyewitness observations.)”

WHO is doing the “deducing”? The analyst! It is not possible for an analyst to deduce a direction from a single observation… the observer may be 100% correct, but the analyst can never rely on the observer to be so (given the propensity for error).

In Tatum’s experience (which we can hardly argue with) he has found, as an analyst, that relying on a single observation to determine direction “generally” leads to error. He goes on to recommend that multiple observations be sought and lists the critical information that ought to be gained from single observers to enhance the capacity for analytical accuracy.

Tatum is not saying it is impossible for an observer to estimate trajectory direction. Logic and your own experience should at least tell you that much - if you choose to think about it for a bit… Read the paper over again in light of my comments here AstroP. Please.

It is of course entirely possible for an observer to report an accurate trajectory direction. Observers can be incorrect - according to Tatum, in a more considered moment and now talking about the general level of error among observers - “ Errors of angular estimates can easily be ten degrees or more.”

The point of course being that Campine (C&K’s star witness) estimated 110 degrees as the trajectory (refuting C&K’s 39 degrees)! If we account for Tatum’s experience and his observer error margin of “easily 10 degrees or more” then that could easily place that “fireball” on a heading toward Kecksburg!

Unfortunately, in calculating their direction, C&K made no accounting for error margins in their own analysis! Tatum would be severely critical of their methodology I imagine.

Once again, it seems you are intent on doubting that nothing was found despite there being multiple sources (including the newspaper staff which went out and looked around the next day) stating nothing was found.

The official line was that nothing was found. However, if the military did find something and carted whatever was there away, naturally a newspaper search the next day would reveal nothing! The eyewitnesses who were there at the time claim something was found and carted away.

Once again you are having problems with the facts. It is the Hays family and not the Kalp’s…

Sure, in the heat of the moment I cited a name incorrectly…

(BTW, Gatty interviewed Hays father in 1965 and supposedly told Gatty he saw nothing – the source is the late edition of the December 10 paper).

You do not provide the relevant quote for that and given your demonstrated propensity (above) to misread or misinterpret cited works (and this is not the first time by any means), then without you providing that source for us, we are entitled to be sceptical about any claim you make based on sources you do not provide access to or the relevant quotes from.

However, to get a wrecker and flat bed into a ravine area to retrieve the acorn is going to take a lot more than cutting a fence. A lot more would be knocked down and torn up by such large military equipment. How do you get equipment into the ravine area? Did they simply levitate the “acorn” out? They are going to have to cut their way into the ravine since it was not easily visible from the field (otherwise everyone would have seen it). Then the tracks left by such heavy equipment would be obvious to everyone who went down there.
Then there are the claims of Bulebush (among others) where there was a gouge and the other claims that trees were damaged. All of these missed by the media the next day when they went snooping around in daylight. Once again, you need a magic wand for that to “disappear” so they would not be noticed.

You say “ravine” as if it were something like a deep gorge. The terrain is actually rather flat – it is a “ravine” merely because it is a wooded area somewhat lower than its surrounds. The military, I am sure, would have absolutely no trouble getting in and out.

Sigh…none of these factors (other than distance) are going to prevent the sound wave from reaching Cleveland if it could be heard from Detroit except for distance. Can you demonstrate that the atmosphere was significantly different in Cleveland and Pennsylvania than Detroit? Both had clear skies so clouds did not play a role. The most likely reason there was no seismographic data is that it was just too far from the epicenter of the sonic event. Can you present an alternate hypothesis that has equal or greater weight that can explain why the seismographs at Penn state and Cleveland did not record anything?

Are you saying it is impossible for there to have been atmospheric differences over the distances involved?

All of these witnesses (It is important to note that some of these principle witnesses to the more exotic parts of the story can not even be proven to have been physically present that night) did not tell these stories until over a decade later. This story was NEVER told in 1965 and there are no personal journals, documents, or anything else from 1965 that supports this claim. That is enough to question their stories.

Indeed, we should be sceptical. But you seem to want to apply that scepticism only to witnesses who refute your version of events and give carte blanche to those witnesses who support your version. You cannot have it both ways AstroP. If you want to be sceptical then you should apply that same scepticism to all the witnesses (both for and against).

The “big picture” is that it was not possible and I have explained why. There are just too many logistic and manpower issues for it to have occurred as outlined in the popular myth. As it was, it took several hours for a handful of techs from Oakdale to reach Kecksburg and they did not have to assemble anything other than the bodies and jump into one vehicle. You have yet to come up with sound arguments as to how it was possible for the men and equipment were be assembled, the convoy to made it to Kecksburg, locate the acorn, retrieve the acorn and leave in less than 12 hours.

You seem to believe it is impossible for the military to have done so…I believe otherwise. We are never going to see eye to eye on that issue.

Perhaps you can present a case where such an operation was conducted under similar conditions as an example. After all, it appears that this must be a simple enough exercise to perform. I can give an example of such an effort but they took over a day to complete (see the crash of a top secret A-12 aircraft in Utah) and it was in open desert far away from prying eyes with an AFB nearby to supply the equipment (and there is a paper trail to prove they did it!). See http://www.dreamlandresort.com/pete/oxcart_down.html. Oh...and they left a lot behind showing they were there despite making an effort to hide the crash site!

“… the airplane was completely destroyed, but that the aft section was still identifiable as a twin-engine, delta-wing configuration. Both tails had separated and were lying some distance away from the fuselage. The engine nacelles had broken free of the wing structure. Ground crews made arrangements to cover any large pieces with tarps.”

(…)

“ Nine people, including the on-scene commander and Security Officer searched the crash area for two full days after the clean-up effort ended. They covered an area four miles long and two miles wide centered on the impact location of the airplane's canopy…”

(…)

“ Attempts by reporters to follow up various details of the story led to confusion as personnel at Nellis, Wright-Patterson, and the Pentagon denied knowledge of the aircraft and even the accident. In spite of such glaring inconsistencies, the cover story held up and news coverage was minimal.

The only serious threat came from reporter Art Kent of KUTV television news in Salt Lake City. Since Kent claimed to have pictures of the accident scene and planned to show them on the evening news, OXCART project personnel debated how to approach the reporter in an attempt to suppress the photos. Brig. Gen. Hubbard made arrangements for the Area 51 Security Officer and his deputy, carrying Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) credentials, to contact Kent and request that he not air the pictures. Kent, surprisingly without reluctance, agreed to relinquish the photos which, when developed, proved to be of little consequence.”

“ Col. Charles E. Wimberley headed the accident investigation board. He took sworn statements from Collins and Weeks and coordinated the collection of supporting documentation. Collins submitted to an intensive interrogation while under the influence of sodium amytal - a drug used to enhance memory following a traumatic event - to insure that he remembered all pertinent details.” (http://www.dreamlandresort.com/pete/oxcart_down_5.html)​

…and you say there is no evidence that the military is even capable of such things… the military involved in successful cover-ups …nooooo, never….LOL.

Regarding the Kecksburg object (as opposed to a “completely destroyed” aircraft), according to witnesses it was but a single, rather small conical (or “acorn shaped”) piece….

You can keep spinning this any way you like but the Kecksburg acorn recovery can be viewed as folklore and mythology.

It can be – and I am sure if there was a military cover-up, that is precisely how they would want it viewed.

The story told today was developed over several decades as people added their tidbits to the tale.

As people got around to actually interviewing the eyewitnesses … something BTW that was not done in 1965…

What was an unsuccessful search for a a suspected meteorite fall in some woods by the state police, fire department, and a few AF personnel has “ballooned” into something extraordinary involving mythical army units/equipment that nobody can identify and nobody seemed to notice and report about in 1965.

Newspaper headline from the next day “Army ropes off area”…

It has all the earmarks of myth/folklore.

The you will be able to list for us all those “earmarks” that make you so convinced then…?

Unfortunately, you just can’t see it because you are blinded by your belief in these stories and belief that the government is covering up evidence of UFOs.

You would like to believe that I am sure… I am prepared to reserve judgement on the question of whether anything was found or not, but it is absolutely undeniable that a great deal of unusual activity was centred on Kecksburg that night, including roadblocks and cordons, a military presence and searchers and sightseers and media reporters… was something found and carted away that night. The military deny it, the eyewitnesses assert it.

 

[Rramjet]

There is no evidence that Cosmos 96 ever was involved at Kecksburg.

AstroP is correct:

”Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, who is recognized internationally as an authority on orbital debris and foreign space systems, has determined that Cosmos 96, the Russian Venera probe that has been considered a possible explanation for the Kecksburg object for decades, did not land in Pennsylvania on the afternoon of December 9, 1965. Furthermore, he states that no other man-made object from any country came down that day.” (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/cosmos-96.pdf)​

 

[RoboTimbo]

AstroP is correct:

And has been consistently correct without your validation.

Could you post some contemporary accounts (from 1965) of the acorn shaped object?

 

[ufology]

1.

I am not sure what papers you are reading.

2. The NASA press representative just parrotted a comment in the Cosmos 96entry that was made by Dr. David Williams at NDSC. He had modified the entry based on what he had learned from James Easton back in 1998 (and possibly due to communications with James Oberg, who seems to have first offered this explanation) ...

TRIBUNE REVIEW:
GREENSBURG PA., FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1965

--clip--

"Tribune Review Staff Writer Robert Gatty repoted that from the scene that "no one is being allowed near the object." State Police officials there, he said, ordered the area roped off to await the expected arrival of both U.S. Army engineers and possibly, civillian scientists.
The army engineers, he said, were scheduled to arrive late Thursday night or early Friday morning. Scientists were expected to be brought in some time today."

--clip--

Shape Mystery

The "unidentified flying object" (UFO) was sighted falling to the earth by Mrs. Arnold Kalp of Acme RD1 and her two children. Mrs. Kalp, Gatty reported, was not available to talk Thursday night, apparently because of the throng of newsmen and reporters arriving in the Kecksburg area shortly after word of the sighting was reported."

--end clip--

I found the above on a quick Google search but it can't be shrunk or it becomes illegible. You shouldn't have any problems finding it yourself. or I can email you the image if you PM me with a contact.

NOTE: Why would they need to order in Army engineers and scientists if nothing was there? This strongly implies that something must have been found by the first people on-scene and that they were going to need some assistance.

QUESTION: who was the NASA rep you are referencing in your example? I'll dig up the one for mine and we'll compare.


j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

I always thought that UFOs were simply secretive government aircraft that was being tested. It is why there is no conclusive evidence to show that UFOs are from other galaxies or universes. Of course now I'm a governmental conspiracy theorist.

It's not just government cover-ups. At least some of the aliens who aren't ETs have learned to disguise themselves as IFOs.

Welcome to Blimp Central, Joecool.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Of course that is not what Tatum is saying. Note Tatum’s language – he is not talking about the observers but the analysts!Tatum is not saying it is impossible for an observer to estimate trajectory direction. .

I have never seen a person so incapable to grasp a concept so simple. If the analyst can not determine it, how can a witness make such a determination from his observation? What makes a witness able to accurately determine the direction of travel and the analyst incapable of doing so? Your logic is underwhelming and you completely misrepresent what Tatum wrote.

EDIT: If the witnesses can accurately determine direction of travel from their observations, why is Tatum bothering to get data from other locations. The single observation, as you claim, should be accurate enough to determine the trajectory. It would be a waste of time to go interview everybody else.

The point of course being that Campine (C&K’s star witness) estimated 110 degrees as the trajectory (refuting C&K’s 39 degrees)! If we account for Tatum’s experience and his observer error margin of “easily 10 degrees or more” then that could easily place that “fireball” on a heading toward Kecksburg! .

First of all, Campine was driving in his car. Tatum says that is a condition for making unreliable estimates (just like being in an airplane). We know that the photographs show the error was more like 45 degrees (azimuth of about 155 degrees). This is not in the direction of Kecksburg.

Unfortunately, in calculating their direction, C&K made no accounting for error margins in their own analysis! Tatum would be severely critical of their methodology I imagine. .

I doubt it. Feel free to e-mail him. I am sure he will have a few choice words of you completely misrepresenting what he wrote. I am sure VDC would laugh at you as well.

You do not provide the relevant quote for that and given your demonstrated propensity (above) to misread or misinterpret cited works (and this is not the first time by any means), then without you providing that source for us, we are entitled to be sceptical about any claim you make based on sources you do not provide access to or the relevant quotes from. .

Are you calling me a liar again? So far, the only person who has had problems getting the facts correct seems to be you. I gave the link a long time ago to Bob Young’s commentary on the subject:

In 1965 Greensburg newspaper reporter Robert Gatty interviewed Lillian Hays' husband, who died in a farm accident in the 1970s. Gatty said that Hays was outside working on his car and was about the closest witness to the supposed site of the crash. Mr. Hays told Gatty (Dec. 10, 1965, Greensburg Tribune, late City Edition) that he hadn't seen or heard any crash or landing.

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2001/feb/m03-016.shtml

You say “ravine” as if it were something like a deep gorge. The terrain is actually rather flat – it is a “ravine” merely because it is a wooded area somewhat lower than its surrounds. The military, I am sure, would have absolutely no trouble getting in and out.

How sure are you that it is easily accessible? The videos I have seen show a very heavily wooded area that was not easily accessible. I saw no vehicles being driven down to the location. Of course, don’t take my word for it. I am not the one who described it as a ravine:

Ray Howard, of Kecksburg, expressed doubt that any flat-bed truck would be able to get in and out of such a steep ravine. “There’s no way,” he said with emphasis. “They couldn’t have gotten within 500 feet of that thing”

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_147868.html

Almost all the “acorn” witnesses describe an object that was deep into the woods. Are you now stating that the Army brought that tracked vehicle after all because a truck isn’t going to make it that deep into the woods/ravine.

Are you saying it is impossible for there to have been atmospheric differences over the distances involved?

Looking at the weather data from the time period, shows no indication of such. Do you have any radiosonde data to suggest otherwise? If not, the more likely scenario is that it was not heard due to distance.

…and you say there is no evidence that the military is even capable of such things… the military involved in successful cover-ups …nooooo, never….LOL.

1. This event took over a day to execute and they had an airforce base about 15 miles away from the crash site!
2. The event is documented.
3. The crash site was located and debris from the crash still exists today.

Compare this to Kecksburg.

1. No military base that was even close. You chose locations over a hundred miles away.
2. Crash site was cleaned up in less than 12 hours in the dark
3. No documentation can be found to support the operation’
4. No debris/impact effects from the object can be found.
5. There is no evidence of the military’s passage into the woods (Peter Merlin has been able to locate campsites at past AF crash sites from the soldiers and airmen who were present).

Despite having significant resources readily available in the A-12 case, it took them over a day to recover everything. In the Kecksburg case, the resources were not readily available and they got it done in the dark in far less time.

BTW, the A-12 event was not a UFO cover-up. Trying to state this proves that the military is involved in UFO cover-ups is just poor logic.

Newspaper headline from the next day “Army ropes off area”…

But it was the state police and volunteer firemen that were stopping people. No evidence that the Army was even present (The 662nd radar squadron was an air force unit that was misidentified as an Army unit in the same paper, which is where the confusion comes from).

The you will be able to list for us all those “earmarks” that make you so convinced then…?

All you have to do is look how the story evolved from 1965 to the present. In 1965 nothing was found and the only unit present was the radar squadron. All the documentation from the time period and the media reported nothing was found. There was no mention of a military cordon or a significant military presence. By the 1990s, the story evolved into an acorn shaped object crashing into the woods. This was followed by the army and NASA moving in to grab it. Additionally, they included the threats towards civilians by soldiers, who have never come forward. Finally, the object was carted away to a super secret location that nobody could identify and it was not seen by anybody on the roads that night. Folklorist would have a ball with this one. Might I suggest you read the book “UFO crash at Roswell: Genesis of a modern myth” where they describe the same thing with the Roswell event.

You would like to believe that I am sure… I am prepared to reserve judgement on the question of whether anything was found or not, but it is absolutely undeniable that a great deal of unusual activity was centred on Kecksburg that night, including roadblocks and cordons, a military presence and searchers and sightseers and media reporters… was something found and carted away that night. The military deny it, the eyewitnesses assert it.

You can keep believing this fairy tale but the fact of the matter is there is no evidence (other than stories told over a decade later) that supports these claims of an object being found and carted away.

 

[Astrophotographer]

TRIBUNE REVIEW:
GREENSBURG PA., FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1965

Already discussed. Gatty was stopped by fireman and state police. No evidence the army was present. The only personnel present was the 662nd radar squadron which was from the USAF (and not the army as mistakenly reported by Gatty).

NOTE: Why would they need to order in Army engineers and scientists if nothing was there? This strongly implies that something must have been found by the first people on-scene and that they were going to need some assistance.

Of course, this contradicts the myth where the military showed up much sooner. The engineers were said to be arriving later that night or in the early morning. Why call the engineers if the army was already there?

BTW, Bob Young did some research on this and it seems it was a rumor by a state trooper who told Gatty. Gatty just repeated it as if it were a fact.

The AF personnel were there to see if anything was present. If they did find something significant, they probably would have reported it to the upper chain of command, who would then see if engineers were necessary.

who was the NASA rep you are referencing in your example? I'll dig up the one for mine and we'll compare..

I am not sure what you mean. I gave Dr. William's name. I can't recall who repeated the story. I think it was David Steitz who mentioned it back when the Sci-Fi channel was pushing NASA for the fragology files.

 

[Stray Cat]

Of course, this contradicts the myth where the military showed up much sooner. The engineers were said to be arriving later that night or in the early morning. Why call the engineers if the army was already there?

BTW, Bob Young did some research on this and it seems it was a rumor by a state trooper who told Gatty. Gatty just repeated it as if it were a fact.

The AF personnel were there to see if anything was present. If they did find something significant, they probably would have reported it to the upper chain of command, who would then see if engineers were necessary.

My take on this (speculation I admit, but reasoned), is that the newspaper said "engineers expected", now if it was believed at the time that something had crashed and would need recovering, people would 'expect engineers'. That doesn't mean any had been ordered to the area.

@ ufology: instead of actually posting or emailing the pic, if it's too big, you can just put in the url of it in the tags so people can click the link to take them to the picture you referenced.

 

[ufology]

Already discussed. Gatty was stopped by fireman and state police. No evidence the army was present.

I gave Dr. William's name. I can't recall who repeated the story. I think it was David Steitz who mentioned it back when the Sci-Fi channel was pushing NASA for the fragology files.

OK ... so if the Army wasn't there yet and it was just the police who had cordoned off the area. It still begs the question of why they needed to call in the Army ... or engineers or scientists, or why the Police officer would cordon off a road and fabricate such a story ... unless the whole story itself is a fabrication? In which case we are back to the press being the ones to make the moves on it, with ufology buffs coming later and throwing more gas on the fire.

BTW ... the page I have on the NASA statement says it was Steitz who made the statement. But it sounds like he was doing more than just parroting rumors:

"NASA spokesperson David Steitz told an AP reporter that "the ‘UFO’ [Kecksburg object] was a Russian satellite, but government records documenting it have been lost". Steitz said that NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s. "As a rule, we don't track UFOs. What we could do, and what we apparently did as experts in spacecraft in the 1960s, was to take a look at whatever it was and give our expert opinion," he said. "We did that. We boxed (the case) up, and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced."

j.r.