UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, let’s do cut to the chase:


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

The rest of us applaud Astrophotographer's well-done research and how it contrasts sharply with the mindset of the UFO creduloid methods of hysterical "research". Why should the rest of us be held hostage to the pitifully low standards of evidence that you accept?

Now, back to Delphos. Was it a deliberate attempt to hide the truth or was it yet another example of shoddy UFO creduloid "research" that caused you to omit any mention of the boy's other attempts at hoaxing?

 

[SOdhner]

The rest of us applaud Astrophotographer's well-done research and how it contrasts sharply with the mindset of the UFO creduloid methods of hysterical "research". Why should the rest of us be held hostage to the pitifully low standards of evidence that you accept?

Agreed and seconded, respectively. Astrophotographer has been thorough and reasonable, and Rramjet has countered with unfounded speculation, and exaggerated descriptions that imply these speculations are proven.

Now, back to Delphos. Was it a deliberate attempt to hide the truth or was it yet another example of shoddy UFO creduloid "research" that caused you to omit any mention of the boy's other attempts at hoaxing?

I'm torn on this. Obviously at this point Rramjet has completely given up replying to us and there's no chance that he will address our posts about Delphos or Cowgill. So on one hand there's really no point in continuing - there can't be a productive conversation when the only person who disagrees just ignores you.

On the other hand, I don't want to allow Rramjet to give the false impression that he's actually covered these points at all. He has, on several occasions, said that he has answered me even though that's demonstrably false. I also feel like other people who might not be familiar with the thread should be aware of how things have been going so that they don't waste a lot of time with well-formed and logical points only to be dismissed and ignored.

On the third hand, this thing is massively long and so people should be able to tell what kind of thread it is at a glance. And this whole thing is silly. So I think I'm out. Catching up and sending a reminder that Rramjet is still avoiding facing the actual facts only takes a few minutes a week, and I think even that is too long for it to be worthwhile to me.

But let me know if he ever answers me.

 

[Rramjet]

But your claim was this was all a FACT that the military was involved in a UFO cover-up. Now we discover you can not prove that it was a FACT…

I claimed it was a fact that the military have been involved in UFO cover-ups. For example:

” In response to a letter from Senator Bingaman in 1992, the Air Force told the Senator that, “there is no Project Moon Dust or Operation Blue Fly. These missions have never existed.” When the Senator responded with documents challenging this, the Air Force “amended” it’s previous statement, acknowledging the existence and function of Moon Dust and Blue Fly with regards to UFOs.” (http://freedomofinfo.org/foi/Background_MD_BF2.pdf)​

From Lord Peter Hill-Norton of the UK, a five star Admiral:

”Since my name has become connected with UFO matters in quite a big way in this country, and in one or two other countries too, I have frequently been asked why a person of my background — a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee — why I think there is a cover-up…” (http://ufology.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_Hill-Norton)​

And this:

”… it would certainly be important if the government had documents showing that UFOs are truly something extraordinary, and even possibly alien. Especially after telling the public the opposite for years. Since belief in UFOs is a near-professional suicide in most respected circles, what would it mean if we discovered that, within the classified world, people have taken it seriously for years?

It just so happens that they have. They do.” (http://keyholepublishing.com/Leading-UFO-Documents.html)​

..and more:
(http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups#module13003225)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYLLoHzMbkM)

…and are begging people to believe you and your UFO websites…

There’s nothing left to do but simply ask that people make up their own minds based on the evidence…

…while ignoring the scientific studies done on the fireball and the reporting of what transpired that night in 1965.

“Studies”?

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

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

… you have yet to provide evidence/proof:

(…)

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

In other words you are contending that all the eyewitnesses are lying? We have their testimony AstroP. Are you saying that Gatty and Murphy (for example) were not there? Perhaps though Kecksburg did not actually exist at the time. LOL.

Obviously you have not read everything written about the event.

Sure, but I have never claimed to have read everything written… Have you?

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

Both of them submitted their fireball reports (one even submitted a letter and prints to Bluebook)…

You keep making these statements, but even after repeated requests you never provide a source citation or a link for them… why is that AstroP? Could it be that the actual file(s) (as we have found on so many previous occasions where you fail to provide the link or citation) actually refutes your contentions?

According to the Blue Book files Champine submitted a photo (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB87-89) but I could find no reference to a letter or to Wright having submitted a report or photos –perhaps you can provide the link?

Chamberlain/Krause went to the sites with a transit to compute these azimuths. I suppose you are going to say, "but they did not say that in the journal". However, VDC did mention it in the State of Michigan Geology survey #5 "Meteorites of Michigan" 1968.

Sure, and since you will not provide the link, I will (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/BU05_301713_7.pdf - see pp. 3-7). However, the problem you have is that of the direction of the “fireball”. Chamberlain and Krause used the Wright and Champine photos to determine their direction - and I have already noted the flaws in that analysis (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43).

As I previously noted, just because it was not stated in the one document you select does not mean it did not occur.

Excuse me? YOU selected (but of course did not provide a link to) the Chamberlain and Krause paper for our consideration… here is that link by the way (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967JRASC..61..184C).

They obviously did not just sit at a desk to compute their values, they did real legwork to determine the trajectory.

They went to the site of the photos and based on the photos and using a transit - computed an azimuth. However, that does not tell you direction!

For somebody who has continously claimed he wants science to investigate UFOs, it is most interesting that you discard the scientific process which produced this report…

You keep making these unfounded assertions - but of course… claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I merely noted that there are flaws in that “scientific process” (http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html#anchor_43).

…because a non-scientist (Rudiak), who has a strong belief in UFO crashes, and a scientist (Sanderson), who had a strong belief in exotic claims (one might say "Extraordinary" claims) like dinosaurs living in the Congo, say so.

It is not the messenger who counts but the quality of the message they convey… (…and it must be noted that the very same “non-scientist” criteria you want instated rules your own comments out of consideration!)

It only takes the will to believe to accept these arguments as being valid even though they prove absolutely nothing and only suggest their might be another trajectory.

The data simply demonstrates that the “Kecksburg trajectory” cannot be ruled out. Nothing more, nothing less.

The actual data supports the trajectory of VDC and Krause.

…and any number of other trajectories as well! That is the point AstroP – the data does not rule out the Kecksburg trajectory.

If you can show the data does not (other than saying their is potential for error), then you have an argument. You have yet to do so.

You do realise what error margins in analysis mean don’t you? Maybe not? Perhaps then I should tell you… In any measurement we take there will be measurement error –it is simply unavoidable. The question then becomes one of how large that error margin is and whether it affects the precision of our conclusions based on what we are measuring. Chamberlain and Krause did not (as they should have done if they were truly conducting a scientific analysis) even mention error margins (and how they got their article past the editors on that score is simply beyond me…)! However, Rudiak has demonstrated that the error margins surrounding Chamberlain and Krause’s analysis are such that their conclusions are unwarranted. That is the error margins do not warrant Chamberlain and Krause’s precision in stating that the trajectory was as they said – according to the error margins the trajectory could easily have been the Kecksburg trajectory also. That is simply enough (even in the absence of any other evidence) in any scientific analysis to make Chamberlain and Krause’s conclusions unwarranted.

In reference to the military bases within 1-4 hours of Kecksburg…

All many miles away (definitely beyond your three hour radius)…

Apart from the fact that 200 odd miles is within that range, I did mention Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station – 66 miles; Fort Indiantown GAP – 182 miles; Letterkenny Army Depot – 124 miles and Carlisle Barracks – 147 miles.

…and many of these bases did not contain the equipment described.

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

To bring a personnel carrier (i.e. tracked vehicle) to Kecksburg would require a specific unit that had such a vehicle.

So? (and remind me ..who was claiming a “tracked” personnel carrier?)

The Pittsburgh Air reserve station is a joke. I am not sure what the air crews of a few F-102s could have done and why they were to abandon their air defense aircraft to go chase a UFO.

So it is at once “a joke” and then an important “air defense” station? Perhaps though the Pittsburgh people might have something to say about your “joke” comment? So are we to take it that you will, on absolutely no basis whatsoever, denigrate anyone or anything just so long as you think it will score a point?

What this shows is you are trying to use a shotgun approach.

Not at all. YOU claimed that there were no military bases within striking distance of Kecksburg that could have supplied men and equipment. I merely pointed out:

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

Suggesting they could have done it shows an ignorance of military capabilities.

Are you really contending that none of those military bases had the wherewithal to send men and equipment to Kecksburg?

Of course, that has been the standard for your Kecksburg research. Just proclaim it and, therefore, it must be true.

…but AstroP… it cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that you are the only one doing the “proclaiming” here …

The bottom line here is that you can't prove any of your claims of FACTS regarding Kecksburg.

Unlike you, I have NEVER proclaimed anything as “FACT” (the only – repeat only – exception to that is that the military has undeniably been involved in UFO cover-ups - and for that I have presented the evidence) and I have never claimed that I could “prove” anything!

The only FACT is that none of these stories about a crashed acorn being found and carted away by the military surfaced until decades after the event.

You must think that a strong point in your argument as you seem to repeat it endlessly and at every opportunity? All of the eyewitnesses who were there at the time tell a consistent story. Besides, you (once again) overstate your case – the first public mention of an “acorn” was I believe in about 1980 – that’s less than fifteen years after the event – and most certainly not “decades”. And surely you can understand why it is precisely this sort of hyperbole from you that makes us suspicious of whatever else you might have to say?

This case should be discarded because it is not evidence of anything except how myths can be created.

That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it. Naturally the rest of us will make up our own minds based on the evidence.

 

[TjW]

There's no evidence that any of these claims were made at tthe time of the fireball.
What exactly is consistent about a story that changes over time?

 

[Astrophotographer]

I claimed it was a fact that the military have been involved in UFO cover-ups. For example:

None of this proves anything. They are simply claims. The moon dust/Blue fly document just demonstrates they were interested in recovering space debris and not UFOs. Lord Hill-Norton’s comments are just that. Nothing in the MOD files demonstrates there are “cover-ups”. This does not make this claim a FACT as you stated.

In other words you are contending that all the eyewitnesses are lying? We have their testimony AstroP. Are you saying that Gatty and Murphy (for example) were not there? Perhaps though Kecksburg did not actually exist at the time. LOL.

I always enjoy the fall back position of UFO proponents. That being the evidence is covered up by the government and witnesses do not lie about these things. If that were the case, we would never need lawyers in court cases and there would be no need for laws against perjury.
I try and look at it is these witnesses probably are a mixed bag. Some of them are probably lying. Others may have exaggerated a bit or have changed their testimonies to fit the story now being told. There are such things as erroneous memories of an event that has happened long ago.
We have no way of proving one way or the other. However, these sorts of things bring out people who like to tell tall tales. See Roswell for good examples of that. Such witnesses with such claims should be thoroughly screened. They haven’t been. As for Gatty and Murphy, they never stated seeing these things in 1965. Either they were the worst reporters ever in 1965 or the stories have become embellished with time. This sort of thing does happen.

You keep making these statements, but even after repeated requests you never provide a source citation or a link for them… why is that AstroP? Could it be that the actual file(s) (as we have found on so many previous occasions where you fail to provide the link or citation) actually refutes your contentions?

Keep trying to say I am lying when it is far from the truth. I usually look in my personal files and I don’t bother to go searching all over the internet for you to provide links to where they came from or if they are available. I would assume that somebody who is as informed as you claim to be would be familiar with the material. I see no reason to do your homework or write a term paper for you. You seemed to be more interested in whining about it rather than properly research the subject. I have yet to see any of these files demonstrate that I was lying about what was in them.

According to the Blue Book files Champine submitted a photo (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB87-89) but I could find no reference to a letter or to Wright having submitted a report or photos –perhaps you can provide the link?

This is because they don’t have the entire set of files at that website. It is only scans of microfilm they were able to obtain. I checked for you and “Footnote’s” bluebook website has those files. Page 1 of the Kecksburg file is at: http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693327

The letter starts at:
http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693545

I think the duty officer’s log is probably the most telling about how the whole situation went down. This is a real time record of all that transpired and how Bluebook handled the situation. It starts at:

http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693686

They went to the site of the photos and based on the photos and using a transit - computed an azimuth. However, that does not tell you direction!

How can a witness make an accurate judgment of which direction a meteor is really traveling? Are you stating that this is the preferred method (what the witness states) to determine the trajectory? The only way to accurately determine the trajectory that I am aware of is to take azimuth and elevation and then determine which direction it went based on the data. It seems you want to do it backwards by having the witness state which direction it went and then make the data fit what the witness stated. Is that how you conduct your research as a scientist?

The data simply demonstrates that the “Kecksburg trajectory” cannot be ruled out. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, but the actual data (seismic information, photographic analysis, and witness reports) shows that it is highly unlikely it went towards Kecksburg and supports the trajectory computed. Can you provide real data that shows otherwise? Reposting Rudiak is not valid since he provides no real data other than how it might be possible that the photographs show an alternate path. You have no data that supports that path other than wishful thinking.

In reference to the military bases within 1-4 hours of Kecksburg…

So now you changed the value to 4 hours? The event happened just before 5PM. That means they could not possibly reach the area until 9PM and that assumes they were standing by and new exactly where to go/what to do. You are stretching the limits here.

Apart from the fact that 200 odd miles is within that range, I did mention Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station – 66 miles; Fort Indiantown GAP – 182 miles; Letterkenny Army Depot – 124 miles and Carlisle Barracks – 147 miles.

I have already demonstrated that 200 miles is not really feasible and we really are talking a distance much less than that for mobilizing/briefing the troops, assembling the equipment, and transporting them via convoy to an area that is not sitting on a highway. Your range is just not realistic.
However, let’s look at your “closest” locations:
Fort Indiantown gap was a National Guard training base used for exercises by National Guard units from around the area. The National Guard, while on call, would take some time to mobilize. They are, after all, citizen soldiers who have regular jobs. Getting a hold of them and getting them together would be harder than an active duty military unit. The base itself had no large unit or equipment that it could mobilize. Feel free to give the name of the unit that could have operated from this base.
Letterkenny Army Depot is a depot for ammunition/material and has no large unit that can be mobilized. Feel free to give the name of the unit that could have operated from this base.
Carlisle Barracks is the location of the Army war college and has no large unit that can be mobilized. Feel free to give the name of the unit that could have operated from this base.
Pittsburgh Air reserve station involved a squadron of F-102s based at the airport (146th fighter-interceptor squadron). It is a small section of Pittsburgh airport where the ANG/air reserve operate from. Being ANG/Air reserve and not an active duty base, means it would not be a full-time operation. Those based there would be the pilots, air crew support personnel (mechanics and technicians), and a few security personnel to guard the planes. It would not have a large contingent of personnel and vehicles to operate. Using them as a source of the military unit that supposedly ran down to Kecksburg, cordoned off the area, and then carted away a spaceship is unrealistic.
What you propose is that any of these facilities could produce the units described but it is not an informed hypothesis. One needs to identify the base that had personnel readily available that were trained in law enforcement/cordon’s (i.e. Military police) and had the equipment. You have yet to do any of this.
I also notice that none of these are closer than Oakdale’s radar station, which you stated was not the nearest AF unit (it is even closer than the Air reserve station).

Finally, we have to consider one important thing in this military scenario. Who declared martial law in the town of Kecksburg that evening? If the military can come in and do anything it wanted, there must have been a declaration of some kind to the mayor, the sheriff, the state police, the fire department, the governor, etc. stating not to interfere with military operations. The military has no jurisdiction in civilian matters without proper authority and it is illegal without proper authority. There would be a paper trail there but nobody has presented a shred of it. Additionally, why didn’t any of those witnesses who were threatened with their lives, had their homes invaded, and property wrecked by the heavy vehicles moving over their land bother to call their congressman or complain to the local authorities? These would be recorded as well. Not a single scrap of paper can be found. Isn’t that reason enough to question the story as being told today?

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

Perhaps you can list the units that were present at these locations and the equipment they contained in 1965. This is your claim. I guess we can dismiss it because you have no evidence they actually had the personnel available present after work hours or the equipment necessary to accomplish the task.

So? (and remind me ..who was claiming a “tracked” personnel carrier?)

Gordon stated that Bitner said there was a personnel carrier.

“Bitner did not arrive in the area until late in the evening. He located a Kecksburg fire truck parked near an old farmhouse with several firemen standing around. They told Bitner that something had fallen from the sky into the ravine below. Bitner was present later that night (not earlier in the evening) when a small group of military vehicles came into that area. Among the vehicles was a personnel carrier and a 6x6 military truck. ( Bitner never viewed the flatbed tractor-trailer truck which other witnesses said carried the object away from the area.) The military proceeded down into the wooded hollow. Bitner and the other firemen were not permitted to go along. When the military came back up from the woods, the firemen were told they could leave, and Bitner went directly home.”
See UFO updates mailing list Jan 29, 2001

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jan/m29-002.shtml

I am only aware of one personnel carrier in 1965 and that was the M113. Unless you can show me a “wheeled” personnel carrier in the US Army’s inventory in 1965, it would have to be the tracked kind.
It is also interesting that Bitner told Gordon that he did not see the flatbed carrying the object yet made that claim to a radio talk show back in 1979 (but at the time mentioned no acorn-like object, just a shape under a tarp)!

So it is at once “a joke” and then an important “air defense” station? Perhaps though the Pittsburgh people might have something to say about your “joke” comment? So are we to take it that you will, on absolutely no basis whatsoever, denigrate anyone or anything just so long as you think it will score a point?

It was your claim that the air force reserve would be used in such a manner. No squadron commander, who was a component of the air defense system, would just dispatch all of his support personnel away to go retrieve a crashed UFO. Remember, this was a reserve unit and not an active duty unit and it was after normal work hours. The people at the air reserve unit would have been essentially a few pilots and skeleton force designed to maintain the craft and protect them. That is why it would be a joke to send them off on a wild goose chase. Your efforts to twist my meaning are pretty much what I would expect.

Unlike you, I have NEVER proclaimed anything as “FACT” (the only – repeat only – exception to that is that the military has undeniably been involved in UFO cover-ups - and for that I have presented the evidence) and I have never claimed that I could “prove” anything!

And that claim (the military is “undeniably involved in UFO cover-ups”) you have yet to prove is a FACT. However, what I have stated as FACTS are FACTS. You have yet to refute any of them as best I can tell.

All of the eyewitnesses who were there at the time tell a consistent story. Besides, you (once again) overstate your case – the first public mention of an “acorn” was I believe in about 1980 – that’s less than fifteen years after the event – and most certainly not “decades”. And surely you can understand why it is precisely this sort of hyperbole from you that makes us suspicious of whatever else you might have to say?

By “us” does that mean specifically you? Nobody else seems to have complained but maybe it is just me. I beg forgiveness to all those who may have beenoffended by me turning a 15 year time span into something indicating 20 years or greater.
Again, their “consistent” stories did not appear until the new myth was out and they only became "consistent" with time and various public retellings. Romansky started telling his story and slowly, the others suddenly materialized with their versions even though the media in 1965 made no mention of a massive military involvement or an object being recovered. Where were all these stories in 1965?
Actually, I think the first mention of an “acorn” that I could discover was when Romansky stepped forward. That was in the late 1980s. It is hard to pin Stan Gordon down on this but the common year for Romansky’s appearance is 1987. However, if you can show where the term “acorn” was first mentioned in 1980, I would gladly accept that it was only 15 years after the fact. I am aware that a few witnesses appeared in the 1979-1980 time frame but their description did not involve an “acorn”. They only reported some mystery object that was underneath a tarp. In either case, it still confirms my point that these “new witnesses”, who never told their stories in 1965, did not materialize until much later, which I thought you stated previously was only days or a few months after the event. Moving on…..

All That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it. Naturally the rest of us will make up our own minds based on the evidence.

Yes, I think everyone can make up their minds in this forum about this case. So far, I can see only one person proclaiming it as good evidence of anything other than a myth. Apparently, your arguments aren't very persuasive.

Perhaps you should try and answer the questions of people who have been patiently waiting. If you haven’t noticed, there seems to be rumblings that you have chosen to run away from their arguments.

 

[R.A.F.]

...the rest of us will make up our own minds based on the evidence.

Now, now....don't you mean that you will make up your own mind based on your "interpretation" of the evidence??

Isn't that what you meant to say??

 

[GeeMack]

Now, now....don't you mean that you will make up your own mind based on your "interpretation" of the evidence??

Isn't that what you meant to say??

Given the opening post, this thread was ostensibly created in order to support the notion that aliens exist and that there is some kind of connection between aliens and UFOs, it's reasonable to say Rramjet's mind was already made up a long time ago...

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

Pity the alleged evidence he has offered has been almost entirely comprised of arguments from incredulity and ignorance. And any that wasn't has been soundly and thoroughly shown to not support the notion that aliens exist. Maybe there will be some valid, objective evidence if we wait another 8 or 9 thousands posts? Or maybe Rramjet will concede that he is unable to actually present that evidence he alluded to in the opening post.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

"Prove it"

"Well, they said that they saw an UFO"

"That's no evidence. That's just taking someone's word for it"

"Are you saying all those people are lying??? Seriously??? Is that what you're trying to tell me"

Case Closed, right?





(Hint: No)

 

[Rramjet]

None of this proves anything. They are simply claims. The moon dust/Blue fly document just demonstrates they were interested in recovering space debris and not UFOs.

They are the actions of a cover-up AstroP – here I’ll quote just the action of the cover-up section for you: “… the Air Force told the Senator that, “there is no Project Moon Dust or Operation Blue Fly. These missions have never existed.”

Given that we know those projects did exist (the AF has since admitted it), no matter how you try to spin it AstroP, that statement represents a direct and explicit cover-up.

Given also that those projects were directly involved in UFO recovery (remember UFO = Unidentified Flying Object – nothing more, nothing less) then the statement, “The military has been involved in UFO cover-ups” is an undeniable fact.

You keep asking for “proof” AstroP – well there it is – direct and incontrovertible proof – yet even when such is presented to you, you attempt to hand-wave it away…

…and of course that is just the tip of the iceberg…

I always enjoy the fall back position of UFO proponents.

Funny, you don’t seem to be enjoying it…

That being the evidence is covered up by the government…

I have never claimed that. No-one (except the “government”) has any idea if they have “evidence” or not. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don’t - all that is certain is that whatever they have been doing (or collecting or researching) they have been (are) involved in a cover-up.

…and witnesses do not lie about these things.

I have never claimed that. Eyewitnesses lie and they make mistakes and they misperceive and they misremember… however, just because it is possible for them to fall victim to such things, does not mean that they have done so in any particular case. Each case must be judged on its own merits.

I try and look at it is these witnesses probably are a mixed bag. Some of them are probably lying.

You see, that “probably lying” is merely a faith-based belief of yours. You want it to be true but you don’t know it to be true – so you state it as if it were true – probably in the misguided hope that the mere statement of it will somehow magically confer veracity on it. However, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Others may have exaggerated a bit or have changed their testimonies to fit the story now being told.

Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable. They may have, but equally, they may not have. Each case must be assessed on its own merits.

Evident also in your statement there is another little trick you like to pull – that of the unfounded implication. You don’t directly claim that the stories are different now than they were then - but that is nevertheless the direct implication of your statement.

There are such things as erroneous memories of an event that has happened long ago.

Sure there are. No-one is denying it – but again, possible does not equal probable (or even likely). Each case must be assessed on its own merits.

We have no way of proving one way or the other.

Precisely. Yet the way you state it (eg; “probably lying”) it is as if you have somehow “proved” it - in the negative.

However, these sorts of things bring out people who like to tell tall tales. See Roswell for good examples of that. Such witnesses with such claims should be thoroughly screened.

No argument there.

As for Gatty and Murphy, they never stated seeing these things in 1965. Either they were the worst reporters ever in 1965 or the stories have become embellished with time. This sort of thing does happen.

…or they were never given the opportunity to publicly relate their respective stories. That sort of thing happens too.

I asked if you could provide a source citation or a link to the documents you claim support your position (considering that in the past when the source document has been eventually found it has often been found not to support your claims), and you reply:

Keep trying to say I am lying when it is far from the truth. I usually look in my personal files and I don’t bother to go searching all over the internet for you to provide links to where they came from or if they are available. I would assume that somebody who is as informed as you claim to be would be familiar with the material. I see no reason to do your homework or write a term paper for you. You seemed to be more interested in whining about it rather than properly research the subject. I have yet to see any of these files demonstrate that I was lying about what was in them.

No, AstroP. If YOU make the claim that the documents support your contentions, then it is incumbent on YOU to provide those documents so that we can verify your contentions. It is not up to ME to do YOUR homework for you. If you do not provide the documents, then of course we are entitled to dismiss your contentions on the basis that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I checked for you and “Footnote’s” bluebook website has those files. Page 1 of the Kecksburg file is at:

http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693327

So even after all that complaining as you did above, you do turn around and provide a link… so thank you for that much at least.

But what do we find in those Blue Book files? Do they support your contentions?

The first important point to note comes in a letter on page three: The fireball was apparently spotted by residents of Lapeer County (Mi), south-east Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Now that does seem to suggest a general direction – from northwest to southeast - once again refuting Chamberlain and Krause (who contended basically southeast to northwest).

On page 6 we see that on 10 Dec 1965 (the next day), the AF had concluded that a meteor had landed in Acme – as the crow flies about four miles outside Kecksburg. Further, the caller referred to in the memo states a direction: 105 degrees. That is a heading south of east… again refuting C&K.

On page 18 we have a letter - presumably from Campine (dated 11th Dec and posted on the 12th Dec – see postmark on p.27) – and this letter also states a direction: 110 degrees. That is also south of east… again refuting C&K.

On page 21 we have a letter from a Canadian Airlines passenger “10 minutes flying time” south of Pittsburgh who, looking east form the plane’s windows (at 4:45), saw an object go “into a 70 degree dive” and within 3-4 seconds disappear. This observation would have been impossible if Chamberlain and Krause were correct… so, again refuting C&K.

Throughout the Blue Book files we see the Air Force convinced that it was a meteor and it came down in Acme (about four miles from Kecksburg as the crow flies – see pages 6-11, 13, 15 and 28 )… again refuting C&K.

So no wonder you were reticent about providing the link AstroP – the information provided refutes Chamberlain and Krause!

I think the duty officer’s log is probably the most telling about how the whole situation went down. This is a real time record of all that transpired and how Bluebook handled the situation. It starts at:

http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693686

The culture of cover-up and secrecy can be noted in that report. For example, after the duty officer had noted in his log that a three man team from Oakdale Radar Station had been dispatched to pick up an object that had started a fire near Acme (PA) and also after he had noted that “The best estimate at this time is a meteorite…”, he received a call from a Detroit radio station offering an information swap - the radio people apparently did not know where the object had hit. The duty officer wrote: “I told them I knew no more than they did but I’d be glad to have any info that he had”. Clearly he did know - and unsurprisingly I guess, he notes no information received from the radio station… and so why was he being so secretive about a “meteorite” fall?

The duty officers log also notes a sighting of the object “200nm north of Flint, Michigan” … again refuting C&K.

Also of note is that by 18:35 (less than two hours after the sighting) a “three man team” from Oakdale Radar Station had already been dispatched “to Acme, PA to investigate and pick-up an object that started a fire.” Of course this observation does not negate the possibility that other military units could have been also on the way.

How can a witness make an accurate judgment of which direction a meteor is really traveling?

You cannot be serious… tell me AstroP, in all the years you have been an amateur astro guy, have you ever seen a meteor enter the atmosphere in daylight that you did not know the general direction of?

Are you stating that this is the preferred method (what the witness states) to determine the trajectory? The only way to accurately determine the trajectory that I am aware of is to take azimuth and elevation and then determine which direction it went based on the data.

You are leaving some particularly critical information about the “analysis” out of that statement. 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 refutes their trajectory.

It seems you want to do it backwards by having the witness state which direction it went and then make the data fit what the witness stated. Is that how you conduct your research as a scientist?

I am accounting for all the evidence AstroP – not cherry picking out only those bits that support my contentions (as you do). How scientific is it do you think to ignore measurement error in measurement analyses?

Yes, but the actual data (seismic information, photographic analysis, and witness reports) shows that it is highly unlikely it went towards Kecksburg and supports the trajectory computed.

The seismic information was used to compute the time of the incident! It had nothing to do with direction or location! Chamberlain and Krause state that in their paper! Who are you trying to fool AstroP?

C&K’s photo analysis has been demonstrated to be flawed and thus NOT able to rule out a Kecksburg landfall.

The (unidentified) eyewitnesses you want use to support for your own conjectures are accurate (!?) while those who refute your conjectures are either lying or unable to observe accurately (!?) - you cannot have it both ways AstroP!

Can you provide real data that shows otherwise? Reposting Rudiak is not valid since he provides no real data other than how it might be possible that the photographs show an alternate path. You have no data that supports that path other than wishful thinking.

I have explained to you how measurement error affects C&K’s data. It does not take a reporting of Rudiak to be able to understand that. Quite simply, when measurement error is accounted for, the Kecksburg trajectory cannot be ruled out.

So now you changed the value to 4 hours? The event happened just before 5PM. That means they could not possibly reach the area until 9PM and that assumes they were standing by and new exactly where to go/what to do. You are stretching the limits here.

Even if we were to take your 9pm arrival as accurate …so what? Besides there were military bases closer than that.

<snip unfounded speculation on the capabilities of the various bases within hour or two of Kecksburg>

What you propose is that any of these facilities could produce the units described but it is not an informed hypothesis. One needs to identify the base that had personnel readily available that were trained in law enforcement/cordon’s (i.e. Military police) and had the equipment. You have yet to do any of this.

I was merely noting there were military bases within range. You are conjecturing that none of them would have the capability to supply men or equipment. Are you saying that is an informed position – it seems to me to be mere supposition. Any military base will have men and equipment. YOU simply don’t know what the specific capabilities were at the time and any speculation otherwise is not informed!

Finally, we have to consider one important thing in this military scenario. Who declared martial law in the town of Kecksburg that evening?

Marshall Law? Are you going to stand in the road and ask “Who declared Marshall Law?” while the State Police and Military bear down on you at high speed in the dark… seriously AstroP, you are grasping at straws here.

There would be a paper trail there but nobody has presented a shred of it

Clearly you have not studied the Sci-Fi FOIA case... (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/NASA_lawsuit_conclusion.pdf)

Additionally, why didn’t any of those witnesses who were threatened with their lives, had their homes invaded, and property wrecked by the heavy vehicles moving over their land bother to call their congressman or complain to the local authorities?

Again you wildly overstate your case. I have already asked if you did not recognise why we might be suspicious of the things you say when you use such hyperbole. Who precisely was “threatened with their lives” and who precisely had their “property wrecked” and who precisely had their “homes” invaded? Nonsense AstroP, pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Perhaps you can list the units that were present at these locations and the equipment they contained in 1965. This is your claim. I guess we can dismiss it because you have no evidence they actually had the personnel available present after work hours or the equipment necessary to accomplish the task.

Yep. That’s right. The US military packs up and goes home after 5pm. Between the hours of 5pm and 9am the next morning the country is left totally undefended. Seriously AstroP, do you ever read back over what you write?

I asked: “…and remind me ..who was claiming a “tracked” personnel carrier?”

Gordon stated that Bitner said there was a personnel carrier.

“Bitner did not arrive in the area until late in the evening. He located a Kecksburg fire truck parked near an old farmhouse with several firemen standing around. They told Bitner that something had fallen from the sky into the ravine below. Bitner was present later that night (not earlier in the evening) when a small group of military vehicles came into that area. Among the vehicles was a personnel carrier and a 6x6 military truck. ( Bitner never viewed the flatbed tractor-trailer truck which other witnesses said carried the object away from the area.) The military proceeded down into the wooded hollow. Bitner and the other firemen were not permitted to go along. When the military came back up from the woods, the firemen were told they could leave, and Bitner went directly home.”
See UFO updates mailing list Jan 29, 2001

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jan/m29-002.shtml

I am only aware of one personnel carrier in 1965 and that was the M113. Unless you can show me a “wheeled” personnel carrier in the US Army’s inventory in 1965, it would have to be the tracked kind.
It is also interesting that Bitner told Gordon that he did not see the flatbed carrying the object yet made that claim to a radio talk show back in 1979 (but at the time mentioned no acorn-like object, just a shape under a tarp)!

Perhaps he informally meant simply a vehicle that carried soldiers… who knows… I must say though I do find his statements somewhat inconsistent in a couple of places.

You are right in one respect, details can get corrupted and misremembered over lengthy periods of time – that is not to say this necessarily occurs, but it is a reason why we should never rely on the story of just one person in this case. Fortunately we have multiple witnesses and details taken at the time (much as you try to dismiss that) and that enables us to gather a broad outline of the event without having to rely on specific remembered details (which do become corrupted over time).

By “us” does that mean specifically you? Nobody else seems to have complained but maybe it is just me. I beg forgiveness to all those who may have beenoffended by me turning a 15 year time span into something indicating 20 years or greater.

All I am saying is that the overblown nature of many of your conjectures does nothing to help us trust you in anything else you might have to say.

Again, their “consistent” stories did not appear until the new myth was out and they only became "consistent" with time and various public retellings.

You see …that “new myth” …it is something that does not belong in a rational debate. It is your conclusion (an opinion of yours) yet you use it instead of presenting evidence - as part of your argument – and that is illegitimate. Once again it does not help us trust anything you have to say.

The rest of your “argument” is a mere unfounded assertion –for which you have supplied no evidential or logical support. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Romansky started telling his story and slowly, the others suddenly materialized with their versions even though the media in 1965 made no mention of a massive military involvement or an object being recovered. Where were all these stories in 1965?

From the Beaver County Times (10th Dec):

“The Mount Pleasant search got underway about 6pm Thursday night after seven residents of Kecksburg, a tiny community of 500, reported seeing a smouldering object crash to earth.

“There’s definitely something down there,” said one state trooper when the search was called of at 1am.

About an hour later a group of 8 or 9 persons reported they saw a bright, blue light in the woods about 150 feet from where they were standing on a hillside.” (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=82AyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4rIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3668,2274894&hl=en)​

(From) ”…the Mount Pleasant Journal published on December 17, 1965, eight days after the incident. Despite reporting that the state police captain said that nothing was found and “we’re satisfied it was meteor,” the headline reads, “Mystery Surrounds Area’s Fallen Object—Many Questions Still Unanswered.” The story states, “seven area residents reported seeing a smoldering object crash to the earth.” (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburgletters.pdf)​

Unidentified Flying Object Falls near Kecksburg, Army Ropes off Area exclaimed the front-page headline on the Greensburg Tribune-Review the next morning. The article said that .the area where the object landed was immediately sealed off on the order of U.S. Army and State Police officials, reportedly in anticipation of a close inspection of whatever may have fallen.

U.S. Army engineers and scientists were brought in. Excitement caused by the apparent landing produced a massive traffic jam, as hundreds drove to the site from surrounding areas. (www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburg2.pdf)​

…and of course two news reporters who were there on the scene (Gatty & Murphy) both report a military presence.

”Gatty’s December 10 story, headlined Unidentified Flying Object Report Touches off Probe near Kecksburg recounts that he was denied access to the site by order of the Army. (www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburg2.pdf)​

Reporter John Murphy, news director for local radio station WHJB, made it down to the site before the authorities arrived, in response to a flood of calls from alarmed citizens to the station. His former wife Bonnie Milslagle (Murphy died in 1969) and WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza both later reported that Murphy had photographed the object.

He got down there before the police, before any of the armed forces were there,. said Milslagle. .He called me and told me he’d gotten pictures of it, but some of the film had been confiscated. But he’d gotten one roll through. Mazza says she saw one picture. .”It was very dark and it was with a lot of trees around and everything. And I don’t know how far away from the site he was. But I did see a picture of a sort of a cone-like thing. It’s the only time I ever saw it,” she said.

(…)

In the weeks that followed, Murphy became obsessed with the case and developed a radio documentary called “Object in the Woods” that included interviews conducted that night.

(…)

After airing the documentary, Murphy clammed up and would no longer talk about what had initially been the story of his lifetime, according to his wife. Yet Murphy had no idea how important his special documentary report would become to investigators years later, providing an intriguing, first-hand window into the drama as it unfolded. The resolute reporter did everything he possibly could to probe and document the story. In the beginning of the piece, for example, he provides the crucial fact that .the control tower at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport definitely confirmed the fact that there was an object in the sky at that time, 13
minutes before 5. (www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburg2.pdf)​

From Stan Gordon:

Some of you are aware that I released a 92 minute video documentary on the incident called "Kecksburg The Untold Story" which I produced at my own expense. (…) Also included in the video, are audio excerpts from the original 1965 WHJB radio broadcast "Object In The Woods." (http://www.stangordon.info/kecksburg.htm)​

(the video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwY_55Sy_nc)

Yes, I think everyone can make up their minds in this forum about this case. So far, I can see only one person proclaiming it as good evidence of anything other than a myth. Apparently, your arguments aren't very persuasive.

I think you better look up the word “proclaiming” AstroP. You ask for evidence to support my contentions and I am giving it to you. However, I make no claim about that evidence whatsoever - I merely note its existence. Furthermore, I certainly don’t claim anything as “FACT” or “proof”. Alternatively, when I ask you for evidence to support your proclamations, you don’t supply it (or where you do it actually tends to refute your proclamations), but most often you merely repeat the proclamation (often in a different form, presumably in attempt to disguise you have done so).

 

[Astrophotographer]

As I am on vacation, I really don’t have the time for this but I will try.

Given also that those projects were directly involved in UFO recovery (remember UFO = Unidentified Flying Object – nothing more, nothing less) then the statement, “The military has been involved in UFO cover-ups” is an undeniable fact.

Interesting how you changed your definition of “UFO”. Before, I thought you were proclaiming that a UFO was something that defied explanation after investigation and, therefore, could be considered “Alien”. In the case of Moondust/Bluefly can you show any Unidentified object that “defied explanation” after investigation? At least that is what you were inferring by your comment. Now it seems just about anything can be called a UFO as long as somebody considers it at some point as “unidentified”. We might as well call those metal strips that fell out of the sky and the smoky rocks/metal found by the kids in Elyria UFOs as well.

I have never claimed that. Eyewitnesses lie and they make mistakes and they misperceive and they misremember… however, just because it is possible for them to fall victim to such things, does not mean that they have done so in any particular case. Each case must be judged on its own merits.

If somebody says they saw a crashed alien spaceship, I am going to question it the same way I would question them if they claimed they saw a pink Unicorn. In this case the testimonies of these witnesses have evolved over the years from something being suspected as crashed in the woods to a huge acorn crashing into the woods being recovered by a massive military force. The lack of any evidence of a military force or any evidence of an object crashing in the woods is reason enough to suspect the witnesses as exaggerating and, in some cases, lying.

Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable. They may have, but equally, they may not have. Each case must be assessed on its own merits.

The more improbable the claim, the more convincing the evidence should be supplied to support it. In this case, we have a highly improbable scenario with nothing more than a few witnesses claiming it happened that way.

If you do not provide the documents, then of course we are entitled to dismiss your contentions on the basis that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You have demonstrated that you have not studied the material. If you want to dismiss what I state, feel free. However, I have yet to see you demonstrate that I have lied about any of these statements I made.
Of course, now that I showed you where to find the necessary information, you made some rather “interesting” comments.

The first important point to note comes in a letter on page three: The fireball was apparently spotted by residents of Lapeer County (Mi), south-east Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Now that does seem to suggest a general direction – from northwest to southeast - once again refuting Chamberlain and Krause (who contended basically southeast to northwest).

Gee, the great fireball of 1972 was seen from Alberta, Canada to Utah. Does that mean it went south? No because the actual evidence points towards a northward track. Saying that just because people saw the meteor in all these states refutes the computations of VDC/Krause is unscientific.

On page 6 we see that on 10 Dec 1965 (the next day), the AF had concluded that a meteor had landed in Acme – as the crow flies about four miles outside Kecksburg. Further, the caller referred to in the memo states a direction: 105 degrees. That is a heading south of east… again refuting C&K.

Actually, you need to read a lot closer. A person called in regards to the meteor that landed in Acme but then they go on to state the event was a meteor sighted “over” Acme, Pa. In all these documents, they suspected something might have landed but determined they could find nothing. Using the one bearing for a trajectory is also unscientific. The individual was in Detroit, which is a big city and can be just about anyplace. Just to be clear to everyone that 105 degrees azimuth (which was an estimate and not something precise like using a transit) is more easterly (90 deg) than southeasterly (135 deg). If you use the sighting line, you will discover that this is pointing east of the endpoint sightline made by VDC/Krause and not southeast of their terminal point sighting line (about 155 degrees). This does not refute VDC/Krause at all. I find it interesting for somebody who is all concerned about “error analysis” suddenly accepts a single data point as highly reliable.

On page 18 we have a letter - presumably from Campine (dated 11th Dec and posted on the 12th Dec – see postmark on p.27) – and this letter also states a direction: 110 degrees. That is also south of east… again refuting C&K.

Actually if you look at the sight lines for Campine, you will discover they are about 171 and 155 degrees. These are measurements based on the photographs and using transits, which are about as precise as you can get. Therefore, Campine’s estimate was apparently erroneous. Many decades ago, there was a study done on the reliability of meteor plotting when comparing them with photographs. It was discovered it was not that accurate even for the best meteor observers (a similar type of study can be found here just to verify my memory as being correct http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2002JIMO...30..185B/0000185.000.html) . Therefore, using an estimate made “on the fly” is not a substitute for the photographic record and the use of precision instruments. You seem to prefer uncalibrated and imprecise instruments over the calibrated and precise ones.

Just because you see something headed in one direction from a single perspective, does not mean it actually traveled in that direction. A meteor physically descending and heading in a northeast trajectory that is south of an observer can appear to that observer as being in the south at a high angle of elevation and disappear in the southeast at a lower angle of elevation. VDC and Krause’s trajectory show how this can occur. For some reason, you have problem grasping this and are using single point estimates as “refutation”.

On page 21 we have a letter from a Canadian Airlines passenger “10 minutes flying time” south of Pittsburgh who, looking east form the plane’s windows (at 4:45), saw an object go “into a 70 degree dive” and within 3-4 seconds disappear. This observation would have been impossible if Chamberlain and Krause were correct… so, again refuting C&K.

However, how did the witness determine east or west? Was he sure of the plane’s heading? Maybe he was mistaken. It is not uncommon for people to get their directions incorrect especially in an unfamiliar environment. Of course, we have this one data point, which is refuted by all the other witnesses that were in Ohio and PA (that stated the meteor was to the north or northwest – see my website for all the news accounts). This does not even include the witnesses interviewed by Douglas, VDC, Krause, and the other astronomers associated with the RASC.

Throughout the Blue Book files we see the Air Force convinced that it was a meteor and it came down in Acme (about four miles from Kecksburg as the crow flies – see pages 6-11, 13, 15 and 28 )… again refuting C&K.

In only one case, do they state it “landed” at Acme. All the other pages state “Meteor over Acme”,“Meteor seen over Acme”, “sighting from Acme”, “sighting near Acme”, “Sighting at Acme” “sighting seen on Acme”. Page 28 is the duty officers log where he says they were dispatched to pick up and object that started fires in Acme (one can see this as a real-time statement that he was under the impression that something landed based on the reports). I am not sure where Page 15 mentions it “came down in Acme”. It is the results of the search by the Oakdale unit, which found nothing. There is a big difference in what you are stating and what these documents really state. Your claim can be dismissed as “wishful thinking” and you appear to be doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. These statements support VDC and Krause since one would have been able to see the fireball to the northwest from Acme, PA. (if one looks towards Kecksburg from Acme, you get a bearing of about 340 degrees), which is in the general direction of the endpoint determined by VDC and Krause (which from Acme is about 305 degrees).

So no wonder you were reticent about providing the link AstroP – the information provided refutes Chamberlain and Krause!

You are being blinded by your will to believe. You stated that all these pages stated the meteor “came down in Acme” but only one statement really mentions land fall. Many of the others just refer to seeing a meteor over Acme, which supports VDC and Krause

BTW, I could have easily told you to go find the links yourself and never given them to you if I wanted to hide something. You can keep inferring that I am lying, which is not accurate.

So The culture of cover-up and secrecy can be noted in that report.

This is nonsense. He had no direct knowledge other than verbal reports being given to him. It is clear in the log unless you are person who prefers conspiracies. The media already knew that something had supposedly ‘landed” in Kecksburg. It was all over the news wires at this point. Therefore, they knew as much as the duty officer.

The duty officers log also notes a sighting of the object “200nm north of Flint, Michigan” … again refuting C&K.

Once again, a fireball can be seen hundreds of miles away. This statement misrepresents that this is individual who found aluminum strips that fell out of the sky, which most people suspected was radar chaff. It does not refute VDC and Krause.

Also of note is that by 18:35 (less than two hours after the sighting) a “three man team” from Oakdale Radar Station had already been dispatched “to Acme, PA to investigate and pick-up an object that started a fire.” Of course this observation does not negate the possibility that other military units could have been also on the way. .

One to two hours is about right to get a phone call out after the media reports started coming in about what was transpiring at Kecksburg. Then you make the argument which sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance. There is no mention of other units being sent, therefore, they could have sent more units.

You cannot be serious… tell me AstroP, in all the years you have been an amateur astro guy, have you ever seen a meteor enter the atmosphere in daylight that you did not know the general direction of?

Unlike you, I know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the trajectory of a point source in the sky based on one viewing location. All you can do is draw sighting lines and make a guess. Can you demonstrate how it is possible to accurately determine the meteors true trajectory from one viewing location?

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

Keep plugging the Rudiak website but his argument is there is potential for error and there is no proof of any error. BTW, are you serious that a difference of position of only a few inches in placing their transit would induce angular errors of this nature? Feel free to prove how this is possible.

The seismic information was used to compute the time of the incident! It had nothing to do with direction or location! Chamberlain and Krause state that in their paper! Who are you trying to fool AstroP?

The farther you are away from a meteor, the less likely there is to be a seismic disturbance. Since the only seismic/sonic phenomena were in the vicinity of Detroit, then it supports the computed flight path. A flight path to Kecksburg would have produced seismic data elsewhere and would not be heard at the station. There were seismographs in Pennsylvania and Cleveland yet there is no record they recorded anything. Therefore, the seismic data supports the path of VDC and Krause.

C&K’s photo analysis has been demonstrated to be flawed and thus NOT able to rule out a Kecksburg landfall.

You have yet to provide one shred of real data that refutes their analysis. If you tried to submit what you have so far as a scientific paper, it would not be accepted or published. Your refutation has no merit whatsoever.

Even if we were to take your 9pm arrival as accurate …so what? Besides there were military bases closer than that.

<snip unfounded speculation on the capabilities of the various bases within hour or two of Kecksburg>

Prove me wrong. Identify the units that were at these bases that were capable of conducting the task you describe. This is your claim that a military unit arrived at Kecksburg IN FORCE and threatened civilians, damaged property, and carted away an acorn. If you can not identify an unit that was capable of doing it, then you are just waving a magic wand around to make things materialize out of thin air.

Any military base will have men and equipment. YOU simply don’t know what the specific capabilities were at the time and any speculation otherwise is not informed!

Do you honestly believe that the air reserve squadron at Pittsburgh had these personnel and equipment available after hours? Do you have any military experience whatsoever? I had over 22 years experience in the Navy and knew my share of soldiers, airmen, and marines. I know pretty much what they are capable of doing and what you propose. It just couldn’t happen. Feel free to get an experts opinion on the subject. I will be waiting.

Marshall Law? Are you going to stand in the road and ask “Who declared Marshall Law?” while the State Police and Military bear down on you at high speed in the dark… seriously AstroP, you are grasping at straws here.

It is called “martial law”. I am not sure what Country you live in but in the US, the military is forbidden from conducting such activities. It is illegal. Any local government that did not have the courage to stand up to such an activity would certainly have complained to the state government, congressmen, and senators. They, in turn, would complain to the president and the press. The AF could not even suggest a witness lied about their sighting for fear of a congressman coming down on them like a ton of bricks. At the time of Kecksburg, NICAP was a strong force and they would have gotten wind of this nonsense and used it to beat the AF publicly like a rented mule. Not a peep…Not a shred of documentation…nothing...Zilch…nada…..

Yep. That’s right. The US military packs up and goes home after 5pm. Between the hours of 5pm and 9am the next morning the country is left totally undefended. Seriously AstroP, do you ever read back over what you write?

Yes, I do read what I write but you seem to have no understanding how the military operates. I have over 22 years of military experience. All bases/ships, go to a “duty section” type basis after normal working hours. This is the minimal force necessary to maintain the base secure and operational overnight. Don’t worry, it is enough to maintain the base but not much of anything else. If there is a need for more people, they call them back in (although it does take time to get this done because people don't want to come back to base late in the evening). HOWEVER, certain facilities (like ICBM basess, Ships at sea, Air defense units like Oakdale) do operate in a shift work basis so they can operate 24-7-365 at full strength. These kinds of units usually are not found at Army bases (except overseas in areas where possibility for action is far greater) because their task is a bit different.

You see …that “new myth” …it is something that does not belong in a rational debate. It is your conclusion (an opinion of yours) yet you use it instead of presenting evidence - as part of your argument – and that is illegitimate. Once again it does not help us trust anything you have to say.

Illegitimate from your point of view but you are blinded by your will to believe the myth. I think any folklorist would agree with if they read everything about this case.

“There’s definitely something down there,” said one state trooper when the search was called of at 1am.

Doesn’t prove anything because the state police reported they found nothing. The news media, who went their the next day, could not find any evidence either. The Oakdale unit reported finding nothing.

About an hour later a group of 8 or 9 persons reported they saw a bright, blue light in the woods about 150 feet from where they were standing on a hillside.”

If you read the link I gave, you will see that Stan Gordon confirms what Bob Young discovered. That the “bright blue light” was a hoax created by a teenager.

(From) ”…the Mount Pleasant Journal published on December 17, 1965, eight days after the incident. Despite reporting that the state police captain said that nothing was found and “we’re satisfied it was meteor,” the headline reads, “Mystery Surrounds Area’s Fallen Object—Many Questions Still Unanswered.” The story states, “seven area residents reported seeing a smoldering object crash to the earth.”

Nothing found. If you read the articles, the witnesses saw the fireball appear to crash to earth. There is no evidence they actually saw anything impact the ground.

U.S. Army engineers and scientists were brought in. Excitement caused by the apparent landing produced a massive traffic jam, as hundreds drove to the site from surrounding areas.

Read closer. The article states that US Army engineers and "possibly" scientists were "expected" to arrive in Kecksburg but had yet to arrive. Of course, this confirms my suspicion that the army could not make it there in just a few hours. There is no evidence they ever appeared. Bob Young told me in a private e-mail that he traced this story to trooper, who heard it from “somebody” that the engineers were going to be called in. It sounds more like a rumor than a statement of fact. Otherwise, you would have seen something about it in the duty officer’s log.

Gatty’s December 10 story, headlined Unidentified Flying Object Report Touches off Probe near Kecksburg recounts that he was denied access to the site by order of the Army.

He was denied access by a volunteer fireman who stated it was based on an order from the STATE POLICE (curiously you omitted this part) and army. Interestingly, in the other story written by Gatty, he mentions that only the state police had ordered the area roped off. Of course, this is the same reporter who called the USAF 662nd radar squadron an army unit. One can easily conclude that the state police did not want all these people who showed up to see the circus crawling around on private property.

Reporter John Murphy, news director for local radio station WHJB, made it down to the site before the authorities arrived, in response to a flood of calls from alarmed citizens to the station. His former wife Bonnie Milslagle (Murphy died in 1969) and WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza both later reported that Murphy had photographed the object.

Unsubstantiated rumor and was not what he reported in 1965 in his radio program. He makes no mention of seeing an object and no mention of photographs. The photographs have never been shown to have exist. It is almost as if this never happened. Claims without evidence…..

In the beginning of the piece, for example, he provides the crucial fact that .the control tower at the Greater Pittsburgh Airport definitely confirmed the fact that there was an object in the sky at that time, 13
minutes before 5.

So, they saw a fireball in the sky. That is not news. Do you wonder why they don’t upload the recording of the actual broadcast or list a transcript? They do it for the same reason that you claim I omit links. They don’t want you to hear it. I have yet to hear it myself but Bob Young did:

“This is the best that I've been able to do on it: Sometime between Dec. 15-18, 1965, a feature, "Object in the Woods", was produced by John Murphy, News Director of WHJB. In it he recounted what he saw and heard that night. This program was rebroadcast 30 years later by WHJB and it supports the official version of events. I heard this and have a transcript, which I would be glad to send you if you are interested. The three key elements of the "crash and recovery" story (ie., armed, helmeted troops with rifles, a flatbed truck, and the object, itself) were nowhere to be found in this broadcast. Murphy reported that he only saw military people in the back seat of a police car (three?), that he didn't see an object, but that he did believe that something happened.

Despite Murphy's claim that the program was "censored", it includes the following formal statement: "This station has not been contacted by any official agency of the State, Federal or local Governments in connection with this program. We have received very good cooperation with the State Police and with the military and we were able to receive all the information that we wanted this past week. We have not had any political or otherwise influence put on us concerning this program, whatsoever."

Just to demonstrate this is a true statement:
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2001/feb/m03-016.shtml

If Stan Gordon was interested in the “truth” he would not ask you to buy his video to hear the excerpts of the show (of course only the sections he wants you to hear!).

As I stated previously, this case belongs on the reject pile along with a lot of your other claims. Your efforts to "prop" the case up just have not been very effective. Let us know when you get your scientific paper published that demonstrates VDC and Krause were wrong.

PS - You still are ignoring the requests of others.

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, given your vigorous and unstinting defense of the scientists in the White Sands case I find it surprising that you are so ready to malign the good character of Chamberlain and Krause, two reputable scientist. Why would two experts, experienced in their field, ignore relevant data, use inferior information and publish without checking all of their facts or conducting an error assessment? If the scientists at White Sands wouldn't do any of those things then why do you suppose Chamberlain and Krause would?

It wouldn't be confirmation bias would it?

 

[Rramjet]

Interesting how you changed your definition of “UFO”. Before, I thought you were proclaiming that a UFO was something that defied explanation after investigation and, therefore, could be considered “Alien”. In the case of Moondust/Bluefly can you show any Unidentified object that “defied explanation” after investigation? At least that is what you were inferring by your comment. Now it seems just about anything can be called a UFO as long as somebody considers it at some point as “unidentified”. We might as well call those metal strips that fell out of the sky and the smoky rocks/metal found by the kids in Elyria UFOs as well.

I have been consistent in maintaining that a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more. Nothing less. I have however further argued that the UFOs in the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation and that such UFOs are therefore “alien” in the sense of being foreign to our understanding of the natural or technological world.

In respect of projects Moondust and BlueFly, I presented evidence that a cover-up existed because there was an official denial that these projects (which undeniably dealt with UFOs – being Unidentified Flying objects) even existed.

The term “UFO” is however seemingly fraught with semantic difficulty. UFO debunkers take it to mean MMFO (Misidentified Mundane Flying Object) or HFO (Hoaxed Flying Object) while UFO proponents take it to mean UtbFO (Unable to be Identified Flying Object) and still other people take it to mean ETFO (Extraterrestrial Flying Object).

In the context of such distinctions I have argued that a “true UFO” (or words to that effect) should be characterised in terms of an object remaining a UFO even after subsequent investigation and analysis – and not just to the observer at the time of observation. In that context, UFO debunkers have argued for that latter definition of UFO (as being characterised as unidentified at the time of observation) – thus allowing them to more effectively utilise the argument that people can (and patently do) make observational mistakes.

If somebody says they saw a crashed alien spaceship, I am going to question it the same way I would question them if they claimed they saw a pink Unicorn.

Sure, but if you really want to know what somebody has observed, then you should question them “in the same way” no matter what they claim was observed (from Pink Unicorn to ET spaceship to satellite to airplane to birds). If you really want to know, then there should be no distinction in the methodology of investigation no matter what was observed. To suggest that the core investigative methodology should vary according to the observation is simply antithetical to scientific methodology.

In this case the testimonies of these witnesses have evolved over the years…

You seem to state that belief as if it were fact. It is of course possible that such an evolution has occurred, but then, if you claim it has occurred, then you should present evidence that such an evolution has been inconsistent with the events of the night in question (for you are certainly not arguing that any such evolution is consistent with the events of the night).

The more improbable the claim, the more convincing the evidence should be supplied to support it. In this case, we have a highly improbable scenario with nothing more than a few witnesses claiming it happened that way.

All claims require evidence. Just because you have an opinion about whether a particular claim is “improbable” or not does not mean the rest of us should be held hostage to your mere opinion about that. That is antithetical to scientific methodology (which you seem to want to maintain in other circumstances) to require different standards of evidence merely based on someone’s opinion about the nature of the claim! A truly scientific investigation applies the same methodology and the same standards of evidence without prejudice to all claims.

You have demonstrated that you have not studied the material. If you want to dismiss what I state, feel free. However, I have yet to see you demonstrate that I have lied about any of these statements I made.

All I am saying (and all I have ever said) is that if you make a claim then you should support that claim with evidence and/or logical argument. If you provide neither, then we are entitled to dismiss your claim on the basis that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I stated in reference to the Project Blue Book files on the case (http://www.footnote.com/image/#8693327):

The first important point to note comes in a letter on page three: The fireball was apparently spotted by residents of Lapeer County (Mi), south-east Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Now that does seem to suggest a general direction – from northwest to southeast - once again refuting Chamberlain and Krause (who contended basically southeast to northwest).​

Gee, the great fireball of 1972 was seen from Alberta, Canada to Utah. Does that mean it went south? No because the actual evidence points towards a northward track. Saying that just because people saw the meteor in all these states refutes the computations of VDC/Krause is unscientific.

Errata: In my statement above I cited C&Ks trajectory direction incorrectly – they actually claimed a generally southwest to northeast trajectory (basically at right angles and in opposition to the northwest/southeast trajectory indicated by the sighting reports).

That being clarified: It is the locations of the sightings that are important here AstroP. You can either trace them forward or backward. Based on the sighting information you provided, your Alberta/Utah trajectory can then be headed either North or South (but not West or East) – other information (you obviously have) then draws you to the conclusion that it was headed North (rather than South). Similarly, based on the sighting locations, the (so called) Kecksburg object could then have either originated in the Northwest (from Canada) and travelled Southeast (to Pennsylvania) - or it could have originated in the Southeast and travelled Northwest – but it could not have travelled at right angles to that trajectory (otherwise we should have sightings from Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana) …but of course C&K did contend that right angled and opposing trajectory, Thus the sighting information refutes C&K’s trajectory.

I stated:

On page 6 we see that on 10 Dec 1965 (the next day), the AF had concluded that a meteor had landed in Acme – as the crow flies about four miles outside Kecksburg. Further, the caller referred to in the memo states a direction: 105 degrees. That is a heading south of east… again refuting C&K.​

A person called in regards to the meteor that landed in Acme but then they go on to state the event was a meteor sighted “over” Acme, Pa. In all these documents, they suspected something might have landed but determined they could find nothing. Using the one bearing for a trajectory is also unscientific. The individual was in Detroit, which is a big city and can be just about anyplace. Just to be clear to everyone that 105 degrees azimuth (which was an estimate and not something precise like using a transit) is more easterly (90 deg) than southeasterly (135 deg). If you use the sighting line, you will discover that this is pointing east of the endpoint sightline made by VDC/Krause and not southeast of their terminal point sighting line (about 155 degrees). This does not refute VDC/Krause at all. I find it interesting for somebody who is all concerned about “error analysis” suddenly accepts a single data point as highly reliable.

According to the memo the caller stated that “…it was 105 degrees magnetic. It came down to about 25 degrees.” but there is absolutely no indication of your “sighted over Acme” statement in that memo.

Now it seems to me that “105 degrees magnetic” is a bearing that is somewhat south of east from Detroit. Impossible if C&K are correct and the endpoint was near the southern end of Lake Michigan - which is about 240 degrees – that is west southwest – from Detroit.

Strangely, the caller makes contact “in regards to the picture of the meteor which landed in Acme”, yet the memo is dated “10 December 1965”. How would a caller from Detroit know about “the picture” (note it does not reference “a” picture, but “the” picture)?

Actually if you look at the sight lines for Campine, you will discover they are about 171 and 155 degrees.

Actually if you take the statement of Campine himself, it was “110 degrees”. Moreover, C&K did not account for error margins in their analysis. Their “alignments” might not be accurate…

These are measurements based on the photographs and using transits, which are about as precise as you can get. Therefore, Campine’s estimate was apparently erroneous.

It does not surprise me that you have totally ignored my previous statement:

You are leaving some particularly critical information about the “analysis” out of that statement. 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.

One can clearly see why you would ignore those considerations – but I would suggest that they do need to be accounted for before drawing any categorical conclusions.

Just because you see something headed in one direction from a single perspective, does not mean it actually traveled in that direction. A meteor physically descending and heading in a northeast trajectory that is south of an observer can appear to that observer as being in the south at a high angle of elevation and disappear in the southeast at a lower angle of elevation. VDC and Krause’s trajectory show how this can occur. For some reason, you have problem grasping this and are using single point estimates as “refutation”.

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.

I stated:

On page 21 we have a letter from a Canadian Airlines passenger “10 minutes flying time” south of Pittsburgh who, looking east form the plane’s windows (at 4:45), saw an object go “into a 70 degree dive” and within 3-4 seconds disappear. This observation would have been impossible if Chamberlain and Krause were correct… so, again refuting C&K.​

However, how did the witness determine east or west? Was he sure of the plane’s heading? Maybe he was mistaken.

I would call that “grasping at straws” AstroP. Unless you have any evidence that would suggest the passenger did not know the plane’s heading, then we can dismiss such unfounded conjecture from you.

Of course, we have this one data point, which is refuted by all the other witnesses that were in Ohio and PA…

You keep saying these things, yet you provide absolutely no evidence that such statements are actually true…

I stated:

Throughout the Blue Book files we see the Air Force convinced that it was a meteor and it came down in Acme (about four miles from Kecksburg as the crow flies – see pages 6-11, 13, 15 and 28 )… again refuting C&K.​

In only one case, do they state it “landed” at Acme. All the other pages state “Meteor over Acme”,“Meteor seen over Acme”, “sighting from Acme”, “sighting near Acme”, “Sighting at Acme” “sighting seen on Acme”. Page 28 is the duty officers log where he says they were dispatched to pick up and object that started fires in Acme (one can see this as a real-time statement that he was under the impression that something landed based on the reports). I am not sure where Page 15 mentions it “came down in Acme”.

That might be correctly termed as “nitpicking” AstroP. 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.

It is the results of the search by the Oakdale unit, which found nothing.

That “fact” of yours is in dispute. It is the heart of contention in this debate. It was claimed by the military that nothing was found, but the eyewitnesses who were there at the time tell a different story.

There is a big difference in what you are stating and what these documents really state. Your claim can be dismissed as “wishful thinking” and you appear to be doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.

So where precisely is this “big difference” between what I am stating and what the documents show? You keep making these utterly unfounded claims as if they were true, yet you provide no evidence that they are true. Unfounded claims – that is those made without evidence - believed to be true despite that lack of evidence is wishful thinking. (“Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence…” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking).

These statements support VDC and Krause since one would have been able to see the fireball to the northwest from Acme, PA. (if one looks towards Kecksburg from Acme, you get a bearing of about 340 degrees), which is in the general direction of the endpoint determined by VDC and Krause (which from Acme is about 305 degrees).

C&K’s endpoint (south end of Lake Michigan) seen from both Kecksburg and Acme (seeing they are so close to each other) is about 305 degrees. However, (in the Blue Book files) people from all over the compass seemed to be pointing toward Acme.

You are being blinded by your will to believe.

I can understand why you persist in making these type of unfounded emotional appeals – but they actually have absolutely no place in any rational debate. I could equally claim the same of you – but where would that get us?

You stated that all these pages stated the meteor “came down in Acme” but only one statement really mentions land fall. Many of the others just refer to seeing a meteor over Acme, which supports VDC and Krause.

Tell me AstroP, how precisely do sightings (over, near, at) Acme support C&K?

BTW, I could have easily told you to go find the links yourself and never given them to you if I wanted to hide something. You can keep inferring that I am lying, which is not accurate.

I have NEVER accused you of lying. Once again your hyperbole makes us suspicious (if we were not already) of your motives in this debate. I have repeatedly stated that your unfounded assertions can be dismissed on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence – but that is a far cry form accusing you (even by inference) of lying!

I stated:

The culture of cover-up and secrecy can be noted in that report. For example, after the duty officer had noted in his log that a three man team from Oakdale Radar Station had been dispatched to pick up an object that had started a fire near Acme (PA) and also after he had noted that “The best estimate at this time is a meteorite…”, he received a call from a Detroit radio station offering an information swap - the radio people apparently did not know where the object had hit. The duty officer wrote: “I told them I knew no more than they did but I’d be glad to have any info that he had”. Clearly he did know - and unsurprisingly I guess, he notes no information received from the radio station… and so why was he being so secretive about a “meteorite” fall?​

This is nonsense. He had no direct knowledge other than verbal reports being given to him. It is clear in the log unless you are person who prefers conspiracies. The media already knew that something had supposedly ‘landed” in Kecksburg. It was all over the news wires at this point. Therefore, they knew as much as the duty officer.

The radio people who called clearly did not know where the object had landed. They called to find out that information. The duty officer did not provide it to them, even though he clearly knew! The question is then why he did not provide that information. What is so secret about a meteor fall?

I stated:

The duty officers log also notes a sighting of the object “200nm north of Flint, Michigan” … again refuting C&K.​

Once again, a fireball can be seen hundreds of miles away. This statement misrepresents that this is individual who found aluminum strips that fell out of the sky, which most people suspected was radar chaff. It does not refute VDC and Krause.

The “aluminum type material” that was found was from the “Lapeer, Mich, area” and it “showered from the sky and are spaced over a wide area”. Lapeer is 22 miles east of Flint. The person who the duty officer called regarding this was not the person - or even one of the people – who picked up some of the pieces. Those “three” pieces were “to be brought to him” - (name redacted but let’s call him Mr X) – “in the morning” by Mr (name redacted but let’s call him Mr Y). Mr X “asked if we minded if he kept one piece to (do/undertake) a spectral analysis on it.” Mr X then said “the sighting of the fire ball was approximately 200 nm north of Flint, Michigan.”

So tell me AstroP: precisely how does my statement “The duty officers log also notes a sighting of the object “200nm north of Flint, Michigan” misrepresent the “individual who found the pieces”?

Moreover, tell me also AstroP how such a sighting (basically from southern Ontario at the northern end of lake Michigan) does not refute C&K’s trajectory (especially given the other sightings from Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania). Surely if C&K’s trajectory was correct there should have been recorded sightings from Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana… (look on a map).

Then you make the argument which sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance. There is no mention of other units being sent, therefore, they could have sent more units.

The argument from ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) is a fallacious argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence for or against it.

I proposed that the fact that some members from the Oakdale Radar Station were dispatched to investigate does not preclude other units from being dispatched. The formal logic is:

P1: X.
P2: Y
P3: X has no relationship to Y.
P4: X occurs.
C: The occurrence of X does not preclude the occurrence of Y.

I am therefore not (as you contend) arguing for Y - I am merely arguing that the occurrence of X does not preclude Y.

Unlike you, I know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the trajectory of a point source in the sky based on one viewing location. All you can do is draw sighting lines and make a guess. Can you demonstrate how it is possible to accurately determine the meteors true trajectory from one viewing location?

What “point source”? There was a distinct vapour trail to be seen. Whatever the object was it must have travelled along the path of that vapour trail (excluding or accounting for some wind drift). Assuming the observer knows which ends of the vapour trail the object started and finished, then an assessment of general direction is most certainly POSSIBLE (Ughh …see, you have ME doing it now… LOL).

Keep plugging the Rudiak website but his argument is there is potential for error and there is no proof of any error. BTW, are you serious that a difference of position of only a few inches in placing their transit would induce angular errors of this nature? Feel free to prove how this is possible.

There is measurement error in everything we measure AstroP. I don’t have to formally prove that to you surely? The problem is that C&K totally ignored any potential measurement error in their analysis - when it is obvious that there must have been measurement error. Rudiak merely pointed out that a measurement error of just +/- 0.6 degrees (that’s pretty small) would allow the Kecksburg trajectory. Such a degree of error could come from an imprecise photo location, a scaling error in the photos, wind drift in the vapour trail, imprecision in the time estimates between photos … and all those potential sources of error add up AstroP. What might be a tiny error in one factor (say a matter of inches of error in the location), coupled with errors in the other factors, could easily put the error margin beyond +/- 0.6 degrees (Rudiak merely noted the minimum error margin that it would take – he said nothing about what the maximum potential error could have been…)

The farther you are away from a meteor, the less likely there is to be a seismic disturbance. Since the only seismic/sonic phenomena were in the vicinity of Detroit, then it supports the computed flight path. A flight path to Kecksburg would have produced seismic data elsewhere and would not be heard at the station. There were seismographs in Pennsylvania and Cleveland yet there is no record they recorded anything. Therefore, the seismic data supports the path of VDC and Krause.

We have seismic data from one location only. That does not – indeed cannot - tell us size of the blast, the distance to the blast or the direction of the blast. All it can do is tell us the time of the blast. Nothing more, nothing less.

You have yet to provide one shred of real data that refutes their analysis. If you tried to submit what you have so far as a scientific paper, it would not be accepted or published. Your refutation has no merit whatsoever.

I find it utterly incredible that C&K were able to get a paper published without an assessment of measurement error – besides, I am not refuting their analysis on the basis of the measurement errors. Their methodology in that respect could have been sound, but measurement error means their conclusions drawn from their analysis could have been mistaken. The sighting data (the states over which the meteor was seen) also refutes their conclusions.

Prove me wrong. Identify the units that were at these bases that were capable of conducting the task you describe. This is your claim that a military unit arrived at Kecksburg IN FORCE and threatened civilians, damaged property, and carted away an acorn.

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.

If you can not identify an unit that was capable of doing it, then you are just waving a magic wand around to make things materialize out of thin air.

I am merely noting that there is nothing in the case that would rule out a military presence (indeed the reports of the time suggest at least some form of military presence) and thus it is possible for the eyewitnesses to be correct in their observations. You on the other hand are claiming that there could not have been a military presence – yet you provide no evidence for that other than the unfounded assertion. In effect then it is you who is “waving a magic wand around.”

It is called “martial law”. I am not sure what Country you live in but in the US, the military is forbidden from conducting such activities. It is illegal. Any local government that did not have the courage to stand up to such an activity would certainly have complained to the state government, congressmen, and senators. They, in turn, would complain to the president and the press. The AF could not even suggest a witness lied about their sighting for fear of a congressman coming down on them like a ton of bricks. At the time of Kecksburg, NICAP was a strong force and they would have gotten wind of this nonsense and used it to beat the AF publicly like a rented mule. Not a peep…Not a shred of documentation…nothing...Zilch…nada…..

You keep making those categorical but completely unfounded assertions – (for example: “would certainly have”, “would complain”, “The AF could not..” and “(NICAP) would have”, etc and so on). Your whole argument is based on these unfounded assertions. I don’t know if I have indicated this to you before …but claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

Yes, I do read what I write but you seem to have no understanding how the military operates. I have over 22 years of military experience. All bases/ships, go to a “duty section” type basis after normal working hours. This is the minimal force necessary to maintain the base secure and operational overnight. Don’t worry, it is enough to maintain the base but not much of anything else. If there is a need for more people, they call them back in (although it does take time to get this done because people don't want to come back to base late in the evening). HOWEVER, certain facilities (like ICBM basess, Ships at sea, Air defense units like Oakdale) do operate in a shift work basis so they can operate 24-7-365 at full strength. These kinds of units usually are not found at Army bases (except overseas in areas where possibility for action is far greater) because their task is a bit different.

Face it AstroP, no matter how much you might believe in your own conjectures, you actually have no idea what military capability might or might not have been within range of Kecksburg that night.

I stated:

You see …that “new myth” …it is something that does not belong in a rational debate. It is your conclusion (an opinion of yours) yet you use it instead of presenting evidence - as part of your argument – and that is illegitimate. Once again it does not help us trust anything you have to say.​

Illegitimate from your point of view but you are blinded by your will to believe the myth. I think any folklorist would agree with if they read everything about this case.

No, not from my point of view at all – I don’t think you would find any rational person who would argue that it is legitimate to use your conclusion as a basis for an argument toward that same conclusion.

Doesn’t prove anything because the state police reported they found nothing.

That statement does not “prove” anything either. Contradictory statements cannot be considered “proof” of anything except that there is a difference of opinion on the matter.

The news media, who went their the next day, could not find any evidence either.

Perhaps you should try formulating your arguments as: (Claim), for example (evidence to support the claim)? Merely stating the unfounded claim means that we can dismiss it on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The Oakdale unit reported finding nothing.

No, their superiors reported that the unit did not find anything.

If you read the link I gave, you will see that Stan Gordon confirms what Bob Young discovered. That the “bright blue light” was a hoax created by a teenager.

FGS AstroP! – what link? Why not just provide the link and we would not have to go through this rigmarole every time!

Nothing found. If you read the articles, the witnesses saw the fireball appear to crash to earth. There is no evidence they actually saw anything impact the ground.

“Nothing found” was the official line which the news media ran with. The actual news reporters who were there at the time tell a different story! The eyewitness evidence indicates that something was found on the ground.

Read closer. The article states that US Army engineers and "possibly" scientists were "expected" to arrive in Kecksburg but had yet to arrive. Of course, this confirms my suspicion that the army could not make it there in just a few hours. There is no evidence they ever appeared. Bob Young told me in a private e-mail that he traced this story to trooper, who heard it from “somebody” that the engineers were going to be called in. It sounds more like a rumor than a statement of fact.

An "unidentified flying object" - possibly the same one reported seen streaking across seven northeastern states and Canada late Thursday afternoon - apparently fell to the earth in a secluded wooded area near Kecksburg in Westmoreland County.

The area where the object landed was immediately sealed off on the order of U.S. Army and State Police officials, reportedly in anticipation of a "close inspection" of whatever may have fallen.

A spokesman for a team of radar experts from the Army's 662 radar squadron in Pittsburgh said, "We don’t known what we have yet."

Tribune-Review Staff Writer Robert Gatty reported 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, civilian scientists.” (http://rr0.org/data/1/9/6/5/12/10/UnidentifiedFlyingObjectFallsNearKecksburg/index.html)​

I don’t know AstroP – we know that at the very least the Oakdale people were on their way…

Otherwise, you would have seen something about it in the duty officer’s log.

Maybe, maybe not. It seems that some of the calls that came in are not logged for example…

He was denied access by a volunteer fireman who stated it was based on an order from the STATE POLICE (curiously you omitted this part) and army. Interestingly, in the other story written by Gatty, he mentions that only the state police had ordered the area roped off.

From Gatty’s Unidentified Flying Object Report Touches off Probe near Kecksburg(10 Dec. 1965):

When I arrived near then scene of the sighting with Photographer Jim Downs, we were denied entrance to the road leading to the area where the UFO had fallen.

“We’ve been ordered by the State Police and the army not to let anybody in,” explained Dale Howard, a Kecksburg volunteer fire policeman.” (http://rr0.org/science/crypto/ufo/enquete/dossier/Kecksburg/1965-12-11_Gatty.jpg)​

Of course, this is the same reporter who called the USAF 662nd radar squadron an army unit.

You never miss a chance do you AstroP…

One can easily conclude that the state police did not want all these people who showed up to see the circus crawling around on private property.

Once may conclude anything one likes – however what we know is that access to the area was denied to (at least) Gatty and Downs and presumably everyone else as well.

Unsubstantiated rumor and was not what he reported in 1965 in his radio program.

So what did he report?

He makes no mention of seeing an object and no mention of photographs. The photographs have never been shown to have exist. It is almost as if this never happened. Claims without evidence…..

How do you know? There is a photo of Gatty interviewing Mrs Kalp…

So, they saw a fireball in the sky. That is not news. Do you wonder why they don’t upload the recording of the actual broadcast or list a transcript? They do it for the same reason that you claim I omit links. They don’t want you to hear it. I have yet to hear it myself but Bob Young did:

“This is the best that I've been able to do on it: Sometime between Dec. 15-18, 1965, a feature, "Object in the Woods", was produced by John Murphy, News Director of WHJB. In it he recounted what he saw and heard that night. This program was rebroadcast 30 years later by WHJB and it supports the official version of events. I heard this and have a transcript, which I would be glad to send you if you are interested. The three key elements of the "crash and recovery" story (ie., armed, helmeted troops with rifles, a flatbed truck, and the object, itself) were nowhere to be found in this broadcast. Murphy reported that he only saw military people in the back seat of a police car (three?), that he didn't see an object, but that he did believe that something happened.

Despite Murphy's claim that the program was "censored", it includes the following formal statement: "This station has not been contacted by any official agency of the State, Federal or local Governments in connection with this program. We have received very good cooperation with the State Police and with the military and we were able to receive all the information that we wanted this past week. We have not had any political or otherwise influence put on us concerning this program, whatsoever."

Just to demonstrate this is a true statement:
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2001/feb/m03-016.shtml

First, that does not demonstrate the statement is true – it merely locates the source…

Second, if you believe Murphy’s radio program supports your version of events then why don’t you ask Young to send you the transcript and you can post it on your site? Or pass it on to me and I will attach it to a post … I think everyone who might be following this debate would be interested in the contents.

If Stan Gordon was interested in the “truth” he would not ask you to buy his video to hear the excerpts of the show (of course only the sections he wants you to hear!).

He put up his own money to make the program. In the self-styled home of capitalist entrepreneurship you would doubt a person’s motives if he is interested in recouping some of that outlay? Given also that the program seems to be freely available on YouTube and Google Video I doubt that he will be making very much out of it…

As I stated previously, this case belongs on the reject pile along with a lot of your other claims. Your efforts to "prop" the case up just have not been very effective. Let us know when you get your scientific paper published that demonstrates VDC and Krause were wrong.

Your hyperbole precedes you AstroP.

PS - You still are ignoring the requests of others.

I ignore repeated requests after I have already responded to them.

Rramjet, given your vigorous and unstinting defense of the scientists in the White Sands case I find it surprising that you are so ready to malign the good character of Chamberlain and Krause, two reputable scientist. Why would two experts, experienced in their field, ignore relevant data, use inferior information and publish without checking all of their facts or conducting an error assessment? If the scientists at White Sands wouldn't do any of those things then why do you suppose Chamberlain and Krause would?

It wouldn't be confirmation bias would it?

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.

 

[RoboTimbo]

PS - You still are ignoring the requests of others.

I ignore repeated requests after I have already responded to them.

Clearly, you ignore them without answering them.

Was it deliberate deception on your part to hide the Johnson boy's other hoaxing attempts or was it another example of the substandard research on your part in the Delphos case?

If you already answered the question, a link to the post would be helpful as I've not seen it in any of your posts.

 

[cesarz]

I believe that ufo is unexplained phenomenen.

Of course most of photos, films and such are faked or easily explained (i would say 99%). But this 1% is not possible to explain at least as of today.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sigh…we are steaming around in circles…Snip…Snip….Snip

All claims require evidence. Just because you have an opinion about whether a particular claim is “improbable” or not does not mean the rest of us should be held hostage to your mere opinion about that. That is antithetical to scientific methodology (which you seem to want to maintain in other circumstances) to require different standards of evidence merely based on someone’s opinion about the nature of the claim! A truly scientific investigation applies the same methodology and the same standards of evidence without prejudice to all claims.

The standards of evidence DO apply but it seems your standards are less than adequate. There is no evidence to support the claims other than these stories being told. They are exotic and, 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.

Snip…snip…snip…

but of course C&K did contend that right angled and opposing trajectory, Thus the sighting information refutes C&K’s trajectory.

Their trajectory was supported by the data. You have yet to provide any verifiable data that refutes that trajectory. Instead you cherry pick a few comments and then draw a completely invalid conclusion based nothing more on a will to believe that it had to go towards Kecksburg.

According to the memo the caller stated that “…it was 105 degrees magnetic. It came down to about 25 degrees.” but there is absolutely no indication of your “sighted over Acme” statement in that memo.

Mea Culpa. What I meant to say was the other documents in the folder made the comments about the sighting being over Acme. Only one document mentions it “landing in acme”.

Now it seems to me that “105 degrees magnetic” is a bearing that is somewhat south of east from Detroit. Impossible if C&K are correct and the endpoint was near the southern end of Lake Michigan - which is about 240 degrees – that is west southwest – from Detroit.

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). It is over the north-western end of Lake Erie on the shores of Ontario. Lake Michigan is almost two hundred miles to the west of Detroit and the area that the trajectory was computed. 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. Of course, we are also left with the fact that this may have been Compine since it mentions the photograph. 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.

Strangely, the caller makes contact “in regards to the picture of the meteor which landed in Acme”, yet the memo is dated “10 December 1965”. How would a caller from Detroit know about “the picture” (note it does not reference “a” picture, but “the” picture)?

Possibly because they took the picture. 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.

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. 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.

I would call that “grasping at straws” AstroP. Unless you have any evidence that would suggest the passenger did not know the plane’s heading, then we can dismiss such unfounded conjecture from you.

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. It also ignores the observations by all the observers interviewed by Douglas, Lee, Wetherhill, VDC, and Krause. 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?

You keep saying these things, yet you provide absolutely no evidence that such statements are actually true…

And I keep referring you to the collection of reports on my webpage. 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)

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)

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.

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.

That might be correctly termed as “nitpicking” AstroP. 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.

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.

That “fact” of yours is in dispute. It is the heart of contention in this debate. It was claimed by the military that nothing was found, but the eyewitnesses who were there at the time tell a different story.

It is a FACT that the unit reported finding nothing. It is not a FACT that what these witnesses claim to have happened over a decade later actually occurred. Their stories were not told in 1965. The news reporters made no 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. 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.

C&K’s endpoint (south end of Lake Michigan) seen from both Kecksburg and Acme (seeing they are so close to each other) is about 305 degrees. However, (in the Blue Book files) people from all over the compass seemed to be pointing toward Acme.

“all over the compass”??? That is quite the exaggeration don’t you think? 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. 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.

Tell me AstroP, how precisely do sightings (over, near, at) Acme support C&K?

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).

I have NEVER accused you of lying. Once again your hyperbole makes us suspicious (if we were not already) of your motives in this debate. I have repeatedly stated that your unfounded assertions can be dismissed on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence – but that is a far cry form accusing you (even by inference) of lying!

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.

Snip…Snip…Snip

What “point source”? There was a distinct vapour trail to be seen. Whatever the object was it must have travelled along the path of that vapour trail (excluding or accounting for some wind drift). Assuming the observer knows which ends of the vapour trail the object started and finished, then an assessment of general direction is most certainly POSSIBLE (Ughh …see, you have ME doing it now… LOL).

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.

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.

The problem is that C&K totally ignored any potential measurement error in their analysis - when it is obvious that there must have been measurement error. Rudiak merely pointed out that a measurement error of just +/- 0.6 degrees (that’s pretty small) would allow the Kecksburg trajectory.

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.

We have seismic data from one location only. That does not – indeed cannot - tell us size of the blast, the distance to the blast or the direction of the blast. All it can do is tell us the time of the blast. Nothing more, nothing less.

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.

I find it utterly incredible that C&K were able to get a paper published without an assessment of measurement error – besides, I am not refuting their analysis on the basis of the measurement errors.

How do you know they did not mention a measurement error in their supporting documentation?

Their methodology in that respect could have been sound, but measurement error means their conclusions drawn from their analysis could have been mistaken. The sighting data (the states over which the meteor was seen) also refutes their conclusions.

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.

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.

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.

I am merely noting that there is nothing in the case that would rule out a military presence (indeed the reports of the time suggest at least some form of military presence) and thus it is possible for the eyewitnesses to be correct in their observations. You on the other hand are claiming that there could not have been a military presence – yet you provide no evidence for that other than the unfounded assertion. In effect then it is you who is “waving a magic wand around.”

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.

More snipping.

No, their superiors reported that the unit did not find anything.

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?

FGS AstroP! – what link? Why not just provide the link and we would not have to go through this rigmarole every time!

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.

“Nothing found” was the official line which the news media ran with. The actual news reporters who were there at the time tell a different story! The eyewitness evidence indicates that something was found on the ground.

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?

The area where the object landed was immediately sealed off on the order of U.S. Army and State Police officials, reportedly in anticipation of a "close inspection" of whatever may have fallen.

And in the same article, you fail to mention that he states the state police had roped off the area and not the army.

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.

Second, if you believe Murphy’s radio program supports your version of events then why don’t you ask Young to send you the transcript and you can post it on your site? Or pass it on to me and I will attach it to a post … I think everyone who might be following this debate would be interested in the contents.

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.

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.

 

[Rramjet]

Was it deliberate deception on your part to hide the Johnson boy's other hoaxing attempts or was it another example of the substandard research on your part in the Delphos case?

Clearly your questions to me are of a form well known in political circles as the “wife beating” question. For example “Was your wife happy when you stopped beating her?” Not only does a question in that form make it impossible for a Yes or No response (dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t), it illegitimately shifts the burden of proof from the questioner to the respondent – turning the respondent’s right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty on its head, and no matter how the respondent answers (for example; “I do not, nor have I ever beaten my wife”), the unfortunate association has nevertheless been made - and we all know that “mud sticks”.

The only rational response to such questioning is to return the burden of proof back to the questioner, where it rightfully belongs:

If you have any evidence of deception on my part then you will of course be able to produce it.

If you have any evidence that “”the Johnson boy” perpetrated any hoaxes, you will of course be able to produce it.

If you have any evidence that my “research” has been in any way “substandard”, then of course you will be able to produce it.

Of course the following claim presents yet another level of difficulty for the respondent:

Clearly, you ignore them without answering them.

If I answer (as I have done many times) “I have answered the question”, then despite the truth behind that claim, it nevertheless does not seem to be a particularly adequate response (for how is the reader to know who is being truthful?).

If I answer “Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”, then again, despite the truth behind that statement, it also seems inadequate (for the reader might still judge that I have simply, once again, avoided the question).

If I answer (also as I have done many times) “If you have any questions that you feel have not been adequately addressed, then please feel free to post them for our consideration”, then that will either be ignored and a page or so later the same old claim will be raised (why are you ignoring our questions?) again, or questions in the “wife beating” form (as above) will once again be proposed.

If I actually repost my responses to any of the purported questions (again a response I have tried on a number of occasions), then not only does that threaten to derail the current discussion and to plunge us back into an unnecessary rehashing of old ground, if history is any guide, then those repostings will be ignored and a page or to will go by and the same old claim will be raised again (why are you ignoring our questions?)

If you already answered the question, a link to the post would be helpful as I've not seen it in any of your posts.

The difficulty with posting such a link is of course that it will (as has also occurred on a number of occasions) be met with the response: “I have answered that link in this link… and so you have still not answered the question.” Moreover the links so listed that purport to respond to the link I have posted - will on examination simply be found to be a reposting of the initial question! And so it goes…

No matter how I respond, there is simply no way out. Thus I (usually) choose to ignore posts such as this one (that I am responding to now) because no matter how I respond, it never leads to any new information or any clarification of the old for it seems that is not the purpose of such posts.

 

[Rramjet]

I believe that ufo is unexplained phenomenen.

Of course most of photos, films and such are faked or easily explained (i would say 99%). But this 1% is not possible to explain at least as of today.

Thank you for your contribution cesarz.

In the only major and substantial study of its kind ever officially conducted - The Battelle Study (Blue Book Special Report No. 14 - http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf), it was found that more than 21% of the 2199 cases analysed could be categorised as “Unknown” (there was no knowledge in the “Free World” that could be found to explain the cases) and moreover, the more reliable the report, the greater the percentage of unknowns there were. For example, of the 213 reports judged to be of “Excellent” reliability, fully 33.3% of them were classified as unknown!

This official study demonstrates that the “common conception” - that only a very small percentage of reports (your “1%”) are “unknown” - is an absolutely erroneous conception. When the cases are scientifically analysed, a substantially significant percentage turn out to be unknown according to the best of our knowledge – and the more reliable the report – the greater the percentage of unknowns there is found to be among them.

 

[wollery]

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.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Was it deliberate deception on your part to hide the Johnson boy's other hoaxing attempts or was it another example of the substandard research on your part in the Delphos case?

Clearly your questions to me are of a form well known in political circles as the “wife beating” question. For example “Was your wife happy when you stopped beating her?” Not only does a question in that form make it impossible for a Yes or No response (dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t), it illegitimately shifts the burden of proof from the questioner to the respondent – turning the respondent’s right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty on its head, and no matter how the respondent answers (for example; “I do not, nor have I ever beaten my wife”), the unfortunate association has nevertheless been made - and we all know that “mud sticks”.

The only rational response to such questioning is to return the burden of proof back to the questioner, where it rightfully belongs:

If you have any evidence of deception on my part then you will of course be able to produce it.

Your own post with the links that DON'T mention the Johnson boy's other hoaxing attempts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6905917#post6905917

If you have any evidence that “”the Johnson boy” perpetrated any hoaxes, you will of course be able to produce it.

I already have but my post with links showing them: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6936103#post6936103

If you have any evidence that my “research” has been in any way “substandard”, then of course you will be able to produce it.[/I]

Your Venezuela case where you failed to do the barest bit of research into the purported letter, the Delphos case where you didn't post links to the evidence of his other hoaxes, and lately your dependence on UFO creduloid sites to foster your belief in an acorn landing at Kecksburg where Astrophotographer is giving you an education in proper research. Let me know if you need more. These were just the most recent three.

Of course the following claim presents yet another level of difficulty for the respondent:

Clearly, you ignore them without answering them.

If I answer (as I have done many times) “I have answered the question”, then despite the truth behind that claim, it nevertheless does not seem to be a particularly adequate response (for how is the reader to know who is being truthful?).

If I answer “Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”, then again, despite the truth behind that statement, it also seems inadequate (for the reader might still judge that I have simply, once again, avoided the question).

If I answer (also as I have done many times) “If you have any questions that you feel have not been adequately addressed, then please feel free to post them for our consideration”, then that will either be ignored and a page or so later the same old claim will be raised (why are you ignoring our questions?) again, or questions in the “wife beating” form (as above) will once again be proposed.

If I actually repost my responses to any of the purported questions (again a response I have tried on a number of occasions), then not only does that threaten to derail the current discussion and to plunge us back into an unnecessary rehashing of old ground, if history is any guide, then those repostings will be ignored and a page or to will go by and the same old claim will be raised again (why are you ignoring our questions?)

If you already answered the question, a link to the post would be helpful as I've not seen it in any of your posts.

The difficulty with posting such a link is of course that it will (as has also occurred on a number of occasions) be met with the response: “I have answered that link in this link… and so you have still not answered the question.” Moreover the links so listed that purport to respond to the link I have posted - will on examination simply be found to be a reposting of the initial question! And so it goes…

Actually, your difficulty in posting such a link is that such a link doesn't exist.

No matter how I respond, there is simply no way out. Thus I (usually) choose to ignore posts such as this one (that I am responding to now) because no matter how I respond, it never leads to any new information or any clarification of the old for it seems that is not the purpose of such posts.

I had no problem posting links showing either your deliberate deception or substandard ability to research. That was the question, which is it?

Please answer the question or if you have already answered it, please post a link.

 

[R.A.F.]

...a substantially significant percentage turn out to be unknown according to the best of our knowledge – and the more reliable the report – the greater the percentage of unknowns there is found to be among them.

Even if this were true SO WHAT.

When will you be providing evidence proving that these "unknowns" are alien spaceships?