I believe Baker was associated with NICAP or, at least, had a strong interest in UFOs. He was part of Douglas aircraft.
Maybe, but do you really
know? – What we
do know that Hartmann uses Baker's analysis in his write up in Condon (
http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm) – so at the very least Hartmann considered Baker to have some expertise in the matter.
And as he was really the only one of whom it is reasonable to contend may have analysed a copy – then we can also assume the Robertson panel viewed Baker’s analysis and not the Navy’s or the Air Force analysis.
The Navy and Air Force were analyzing something they had never analyzed before.
They had never analysed a film before? It is comments like these from you that make me despair of getting any sense from the JREF community at all.
The Robertson panel mentions talking to a LT Neasham and a Mr. Woo (amazing but that is his name).
Only “amazing” if your were born in an introspective part of the country and had no experience of foreign heritage surnames.
While they may have had experience analyzing film for battle damage, intelligence, or recon work, what was their expertise in analyzing this type of film?
Oh, so now they
are experienced in film analysis! But you are grasping at straws AstroP. Could they correctly use a densitometer? Of course they could. Could they analyse flight paths? Of course they could. Could they assess angular velocity? Of course they could. Once again you are merely attempting to obfuscate the evidence by calling into question the expertise of what probably were the most expert film analysis people in the world at the time. But of course you
must resort to such implausibility’s in order to maintain your belief system.
Based on what the Robertson panel notes, they were not exactly proficient at doing this sort of thing.
Now that is a completely unfounded assertion - and you
should be aware by now that the mere statement of unfounded assertion does not somehow magically confer veracity on that assertion.
We were actually discussing who it was that might have assessed a
copy of the film. Clearly the Navy and the Air Force had access to the original – so it is implausible to suggest they would have analysed a copy. We are really only left with Baker in that respect – and his conclusions are in line with the previous Navy and Air Force analyses.
They pointed this out and mentioned that several of the conclusions were determined to be inaccurate according to the panel.
It is only the Robertson Panel who comes to such conclusions – and they conducted no analysis of their own. They were merely
speculating about what had gone before.
I would defer to the experts in such matters – I find it strange that you do not …actually, in order to maintain your beliefs
of course you do not. For you, experts are only
expert if they support your own opinions.
As Dr Swords notes: “
… one feels that it is appropriate to disagree with these allegedly competent professionals, who unlike ourselves actually worked on the primary copy at the time, with some humility.” (
http://www.nicap.org/utah8.htm)
Oh and as a matter of related interest:
”
Colonel XXXXXX, Executive Officer to Major General John A. Samford, Director of Intelligence, Air Force, advised on October 23, 1952, that another recent extremely credible sighting had been reported to Air Intelligence. A Navy photographer, while traveling across the United States in his own car, saw a number of objects in the sky which appeared to be flying saucers. He tool approximately thirty-five feet of motion-picture film of these objects. He voluntarily submitted the film to Air Intelligence who had it studied by Air Technical Intelligence Center. Experts at the Air Technical Intelligence Center have advised that, after careful study, there were as many as twelve to sixteen flying objects recorded on this film; that the possibility of weather balloons, clouds or other explainable objects has been completely ruled out; and that they are at a complete loss to explain this most recent credible sighting. The Air Technical Intelligence Center experts pointed out that they could not be optical illusions inasmuch as optical illusions could not be recorded on film.
Colonel XXXXX advised that Air Intelligence still feels that the so-called flying saucers are either optical illusions or atmospheric phenomena. He pointed out, however, that some Military officials are seriously considering the possibility of interplanetary ships.” (
http://www.nicap.org/utah5.htm)
Once again, if you have any data from the film that falsifies the Sea gull hypothesis, feel free to present it. I have yet to see you make a good argument against sea gulls using actual data from the film.
The conclusions of the experts who examined the film are that the “birds” hypothesis does not fly. As I am not an expert in film analysis, I find myself therefore having to defer to the experts who actually examined the film.
Ouch. Before Rramjet jumps on this, I never claimed to be or have been a practicing scientist. I just want to make it clear before somebody starts repeating this. I was the senior enlisted supervisor (E-8) for the Nuclear engineering department for a Submarine (I also served as a technician and a technician supervisor on the other nuclear subs I served upon). I received training as a nuclear operator, which was very extensive training (it took over two years to complete the entire program for my rating in electronics). I don't own a degree and was never an actual officer (Officer paygrade).
I would not have commented, there was no need, but now it has been raised ...In other words a rated electronics engineer (with no formal qualification apart from the rating) who worked in that capacity on nuclear submarines. So since you are so hot on criticising the expertise of
qualified scientists to speak on the issue in an area of their
own expertise…
You're conflating the words possible and plausible again. Typical pseudoscientific error so don't feel too badly you've done it so many times.
