UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[SnidelyW]

I'd like the skeptics to explain their position on the The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident of 16 March 1967. 'This Larry King Live' excerpt begins the discussion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sby-c9CTVk&feature=rel

The skeptical position is represented by Bill Nye. One of the guests is Robert Salas, the Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commander on duty during the incident.


When a UFO appears at the front gate of the installation, and six to eight ICBM's become inoperable within seconds of its appearance, this is not considered evidence enough for the skeptics, according to Bill Nye. Coincidence, says Bill.

Here is the synopsis of the event, as related by the participants.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

My question for the skeptics would be if several of the most secure Air Force installations (the silos guarding the controls to ICBM's), can be compromised, almost instantly, with the sighting of a UFO at close range, and be discounted by skeptics, then what will be deemed evidence enough?

Assist me in wrapping my brain around the concept that cause/effect wasn't at work here? If I place a magnet near some iron filings, the filings orient themselves towards the magnet. Why can't I do the same thing with the UFO knocking the ICBM's offline?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Is this another best case? I am aware of some information that puts some doubt into this recollection of events and it should appear soon if not on the web, in SUNlite (tease for next issue). However, just realize that Salas has changed his story at least twice since coming forward. Orignally, he thought he was part of Echo flight (which did have a missile shutdown - however the record shows that UFO "rumors" had nothing to do with the shutdown), then he said he was part of November flight (there is no record of any missile shutdown for this flight), and finally he stated he was part of Oscar flight (which is where history puts him and there was no missile shutdown recorded there either). There are no records of any missile shutdown other than Echo flight. The rest of the story appears to be an attempt to justify his claim.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yeah, it was off topic, but in my world, understanding is never a bad thing.
For what my opinion is worth, anyway.

Not at all off-topic mate. I agree with you, and it's a good thing to understand where each other is coming from.


Sorry if I appeared to accuse you of being OT.

 

[SnidelyW]

I am not presenting this as a 'best' case- it's merely to ask the skeptics to clarify their position on evidence.
In this case we have what appears to be clear cause and effect at a secure military installation.
I'm wondering why this isn't seen as compelling.

I'll rebut your discrediting Salas as a competent witness in a future post.

 

[GeeMack]

Assist me in wrapping my brain around the concept that cause/effect wasn't at work here? If I place a magnet near some iron filings, the filings orient themselves towards the magnet. Why can't I do the same thing with the UFO knocking the ICBM's offline?

Yes or no, do you have any evidence that the thing described as a UFO in this incident was some particular thing?

 

[Paulhoff]

Stories and pictures don't mean a damn thing, if one doesn't show hard evidence, anything not of this earth and/or not made by man, it means nothing.

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

I am not presenting this as a 'best' case- it's merely to ask the skeptics to clarify their position on evidence.
In this case we have what appears to be clear cause and effect at a secure military installation.
I'm wondering why this isn't seen as compelling.

I'll rebut your discrediting Salas as a competent witness in a future post.

What Paul said, but I'll have a read of the article and give you my honest opinion after I rest me weary bones.

 

[GeeMack]

I am not presenting this as a 'best' case- it's merely to ask the skeptics to clarify their position on evidence.
In this case we have what appears to be clear cause and effect at a secure military installation.
I'm wondering why this isn't seen as compelling.

I'll rebut your discrediting Salas as a competent witness in a future post.

Yes or no, do you have evidence to show that the thing described as an unidentified flying object in this incident was some particular thing?

 

[Paulhoff]

For what little it is worth, I had a friend, who is gone now, that work on a project like the Air Force Blue Book. They never found any hard evidence. It all was just personal experience. His group did come up with an idea of why people thought they saw something, but I don't have documentations for it. I will get in touch with his wife, but I think the documents they are gone. There was no market for the truth, people want BS.


He was to Area 51, nothing was there, and I know this is he said she said stuff.


Paul

 

[SnidelyW]

Is this another best case? I am aware of some information that puts some doubt into this recollection of events and it should appear soon if not on the web, in SUNlite (tease for next issue). However, just realize that Salas has changed his story at least twice since coming forward. Orignally, he thought he was part of Echo flight (which did have a missile shutdown - however the record shows that UFO "rumors" had nothing to do with the shutdown), then he said he was part of November flight (there is no record of any missile shutdown for this flight), and finally he stated he was part of Oscar flight (which is where history puts him and there was no missile shutdown recorded there either). There are no records of any missile shutdown other than Echo flight. The rest of the story appears to be an attempt to justify his claim.

An excerpt of a telephone interview with Col. Walter Figel. Figel was Eric Carlson’s deputy missile commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 and provides a first-hand account of events as he experienced them:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008/12/did-ufos-cause-shutdown-of-icbms-at.html


It is my understanding of the events that;

"During the events of that morning in 1967, UFOs were sighted by security personnel at the Oscar Flight LCC and at one O-Flight LF, and by other security and maintenance personnel at Echo-Flight LFs. These sightings were reported separately to the capsule crews at both LCCs at or about the same time Minuteman Strategic missiles shut down at both sites. (underline mine) USAF has confirmed that all of Echo flights' missiles shutdown within seconds of each other and that no cause for this could be found."
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

So I would dispute your claim that only one site was affected.

 

[GeeMack]

I am not presenting this as a 'best' case- it's merely to ask the skeptics to clarify their position on evidence.

But you don't really want to know the answer. So your asking, as if you really do want to know, is dishonest.

 

[GeeMack]

So I would dispute your claim that only one site was affected.

One important thing to consider, at least for those who have the balls to step out from behind their wall of willful ignorance, is this: Yes or no, these effects you speak of, are they evidence that the UFO was some particular thing?

 

[Astrophotographer]

An excerpt of a telephone interview with Col. Walter Figel. Figel was Eric Carlson’s deputy missile commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 and provides a first-hand account of events as he experienced them:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008/12/did-ufos-cause-shutdown-of-icbms-at.html


It is my understanding of the events that;

"During the events of that morning in 1967, UFOs were sighted by security personnel at the Oscar Flight LCC and at one O-Flight LF, and by other security and maintenance personnel at Echo-Flight LFs. These sightings were reported separately to the capsule crews at both LCCs at or about the same time Minuteman Strategic missiles shut down at both sites. (underline mine) USAF has confirmed that all of Echo flights' missiles shutdown within seconds of each other and that no cause for this could be found."
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

So I would dispute your claim that only one site was affected.

Anecdotal claim. Look at the unit history (page 32). It states that Echo flight, and ONLY ECHO FLIGHT, had a missile shutdown. Are you suggesting that one flight shutdown was recorded but the others were not? I have communicated with Eric Carlson's son, who has talked to his father at length on this subject. He informs me that his father states that ONLY ECHO Flight had the shutdown that day. BTW, can you give me a quote from Figel that he stated shutdowns occurred on both flights. I don't see it. The link you provided has mostly to do with Salas version of events. BTW, the missile shutdown occurred at 0845 (local time). How can Salas make the following statement if that is so?

Outside, above the subterranean LCC capsule, it was a typical clear, cold Montana night sky; there were a few inches of snow on the ground. Where we were, there were no city lights to detract from the spectacular array of stars, and it was not uncommon to see shooting stars. Montana isn’t called “Big Sky Country” for no reason, and Airmen on duty topside probably spent some of their time outside looking up at the stars.

It makes you start wondering about the story when you read inconsistencies such as these.

Finally, you can read page 38 of the history and see this:

Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of the fault were disproven. A mobile strike team, which had checked all of November flight's LF on the morning of 16 March 1967, were questioned and no unusual sightings or activity was observed.

This is the Unit history that states this. Is Salas stating the unit history is a lie? If so, why are you so willing to believe him and not willing to believe the actual documentation from the time period? Finally, why are there no UFO reports from Malmstrom on the date in question? Look it up. There are no civilian or military reports from the time period and nothing was reported in the paper. If the UFO was as prominent as Salas claims, there should have been a great number of UFO reports filed with bluebook and to the press.

 

[SnidelyW]

Is this another best case? I am aware of some information that puts some doubt into this recollection of events and it should appear soon if not on the web, in SUNlite (tease for next issue). However, just realize that Salas has changed his story at least twice since coming forward. Orignally, he thought he was part of Echo flight (which did have a missile shutdown - however the record shows that UFO "rumors" had nothing to do with the shutdown), then he said he was part of November flight (there is no record of any missile shutdown for this flight), and finally he stated he was part of Oscar flight (which is where history puts him and there was no missile shutdown recorded there either). There are no records of any missile shutdown other than Echo flight. The rest of the story appears to be an attempt to justify his claim.

Here's an original document expressing the gravity of the Malmstrom situation;

http://keyholepublishing.com/1967-MALM.JPG

 

[Astrophotographer]

Here's an original document expressing the gravity of the Malmstrom situation;

http://keyholepublishing.com/1967-MALM.JPG

Nothing about UFOs.

EDIT: Additionally, there is a great effort to get technical help from various agencies in this document. Why would the USAF spend thousands/millions of dollars chasing a phantom fault when they already knew the UFOs had shutdown their missiles? Seems to me that this indicates UFOs were not the cause.

 

[GeeMack]

Nothing about UFOs.

EDIT: Additionally, there is a great effort to get technical help from various agencies in this document. Why would the USAF spend thousands/millions of dollars chasing a phantom fault when they already knew the UFOs had shutdown their missiles? Seems to me that this indicates UFOs were not the cause.

But it's ever so much more fun and exciting to believe in UFOs and aliens. That's why Rramjet and SnidelyW choose to be ignorant rather than to understand.

 

[Paulhoff]

But it's ever so much more fun and exciting to believe in UFOs and aliens. That's why Rramjet and SnidelyW choose to be ignorant rather than to understand.

Do they know what the U means in UFO, it does not mean Alien Spaceship.

Paul

 

[Astrophotographer]

I felt it necessary to go back and retrieve more of Carpenter's files on how he created his 3D model. His reference points were provided by the Condon Report's analysis and, surprise...surprise, the horizontal determined by one Dr. Bruce Maccabee (one of Rramjet's favorite sources).

http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html (figures 1 and 2)

Look where Dr. Maccabee draws the horizontal in his photographs. They are well below the top of the oil tank. One has to wonder why he would do that if, as Rramjet contends, the horizontal should be above the oil tank?

It is one of the baselines Carpenter used for his model. He would state the following concerning the heights:

Using the horizon lines described above, the approximate height of Trent's and Hartmann's camera's lenses can be determined by rough triangulation with the siding of the garage and house. (While the garage siding had apparently been changed between photos, the approximate height can be determined with reasonable accuracy, allowing for error due to ground variation, grass thickness and so on. The siding boards in the Hartmann photo are said to be 6.75" high.) Note that the lens was evidently just over 36 inches above the ground in photo 1 (red lines) and somewhat over 40 inches high in photo 2 (blue lines). Compare with the horizon of Hartmann's camera (green), evidently made with his own camera at eye level in a standing position -- about 70 inches above the ground. The dog in Hartmann's photo -- probably something like a medium sized German Shepherd mix -- provides a point of comparison as well. Obviously Trent's camera was positioned just a few inches higher than its head when Photo 1 was shot.

This image is what he was referencing:

 

[GeeMack]

Do they know what the U means in UFO, it does not mean Alien Spaceship.

No. They don't know. But it's not for lack of trying on our part.

 

[Rramjet]

The problem is not the language barrier - Portuguese and Spanish are actually similar for those who are not familiar with them. The problem is Rramjet's modus operandi, pretending to master a number of subjetcs, making assumptions and empty claims.

Such a mistake coming from other posters would probably be ignored by me (or received a diferent reply). Mind you, its not even a matter of the position defended by the poster- had it been Snidley, I would consider it to be a honest mistake, since he AFAIK does not consider himself a scientist neither presents his posts as science.

But as soon as one presents him/herself as a scientist (and especially if this person consistently shows no evidence of mastering the scientific method), my tolerance level for errors and mistakes decreases drastically.

I am flattered that you think that scientists should be “all knowing, all seeing” and that you think my posts demonstrate some scientific mastery of a number of subjects. I can now understand why I seem to attract so much abuse from you and others in this forum. You seem to have placed me on some sort of pedestal as a “scientist” and when I fail to live up to some supposed standard or other of yours, then you are all the more bitterly disappointed and therefore tend to take your frustrations out on me.

Perhaps my advice to you then would be just to accept that it is the content of my posts that you should concern yourself with, not my supposed scientific “status”.

Thus when you state things like:

It is obvious that your checks are highly ineffective. Same with the way you handle data and scientific concepts.

You should really be addressing the content of my posts rather than making such unfounded, belief-based assertions of this nature. I think you will find that you will feel less frustrated and less alienated from the discussion at hand.

Typical pseudoscientific rambling. If you were actually aware of how science works you would not have to appeal to this fallacy.

Here also you should have pointed out precisely what the fallacy is. Then we could have moved on with the discussion. Otherwise you will continue to be frustrated.

Yes, I point at your poor research, which is built over unreliable sources – UFOlogy sites. Aren’t able to see the many contradictions, hearsay, hoaxes, etc. at these places? Do you need us to point them for you?

Rather than continue to make generalised, unfounded assertions, yes, I do need you to “point them” for me. It would be a useful exercise and it would move the discussion on.

Not only you demonstrated ignorance on SETI principles; you now just demonstrated some more of your shortcomings regarding the way you look at UFO lore. Just for starters, expose the methods you used to derive your conclusion on ET/humans communications from UFO lore. Which cases you selected and why, based on which criteria? Have you removed elements from these cases? Which ones, how and why?

You can of course by now see your problem here? If I have “demonstrated ignorance of SETI principles” you need to describe how I have done that. Merely stating the unfounded assertion does not move the debate forward in any meaningful fashion.

Why do I select the cases I present? Simply I think that they are good cases and I am interested to see what the UFO debunkers have to say about them. If I cannot get a rational response or a decent refutation of these cases from the JREF, then to whom am I supposed to turn? As to “removing elements” from my cases – In my opinion I think you may be a little paranoid here (perhaps this is based on your obvious frustration?). I simply present the cases as I find them. If you contend that I have “removed” elements from them, then you need to be able to show what those “elements” are. If you cannot, then you need to reassess your beliefs on the matter.

Oh, really? Then state that it is enough to back your beliefs and stop pretending to act like a scientist.

If you think my posts are the work of a scientist, then I am flattered that you think so. But of course there is a danger of placing me on an “all seeing, all knowing” pedestal as you seem to do. Your disappointment will simply be all the more greater when, in your eyes, I make human mistakes.

That you fail to see the reason why speaks volumes on your lack of skills when it comes down to science… And now this includes the social ones.

If I “fail to see the reason why”, then you should be able to point out how I have “failed”. If you cannot then you need to reassess your beliefs on the matter.

I’ll ignore the obvious contradiction the last sentence of the above quote is when compared with other statements by Rramjet.
See, if you had a better understanding of sciences, you would be aware of the endless discussions between “hard” and “soft” sciences. You would also understand, by now, why I say UFO evidence is good to prove the existence of hoaxes, gullible people, cult mindsets, etc. UFOlogy (as well as other fringe-subjects-o-logies”) is a matter for social sciences – it has to do with the way beliefs (memes if you will) appear, evolve and are incorporated in to our culture. The only way UFO lore can be used as good data is by looking at it as I stated –lore. Modern folklore, modern myths that’s what the whole UFO business is all about. However, UFOlogist always presented UFOlogy as hard science, UFOs are supposed to be “material”, tangible, able to produce material effects, leave remains, etc. The UFO phenomenon would then have at its core something measurable, replicable – thus falling within the “hard” sciences. To date, UFOlogy only accumulated failures along this line.
Try building a jet engine or propose a mining project based on datasets and methods with quality similar to what is presented by UFOlogists.

You have a particular belief that the subject of UFOs represents a “lore” of some sort. You will of course be able to support that belief with hard evidence that you can show to others (including me). Otherwise you are again simply making generalised, unfounded, belief-based assertions. That you also believe that UFO related research has been a “failure” means that you consider such things as the Battelle study, the Condon report, the Sturrock Panel, and a host of other research projects, academic studies, PhDs, (by UFO debunkers and UFO proponents and independent scientists alike) etc to have been “failures”. If so then you will of course be able to describe precisely why you think such research efforts (and critically future research) is a failure.

Without the original documents and hospital records, even if the reporter was actually “serious in his attempts and had clear and honest motives in making the report” one can not be sure of the exact facts, one can not be sure on how exact were his descriptions. If you had any intentions of acting in anything remotely similar to scientific, you would realize this fact.

You seem to get bogged down in the details here (“exact facts”). What is important is the occurrence itself and the way in which it was reported. A UFO coupled with radiation like injuries – in 1886! But the report itself is NOT a “UFO” report. The reporter believes he has an explanation (an electrical/meteorological phenomenon) of the type being discussed in Scientific American. He merely outlines the case for the consideration of what he considers to be more learned minds than his own. It is a matter of fact report that we simply have no reason to doubt the veracity of.

…oh I forgot, according to the UFO debunkers, eyewitnesses, etc are always wrong 100% of the time aren’t they? One wonders how anyone can make their way around in this world at all.

That was laughable, Rramjet, especially when in conjunction with your claims like those quoted above and below.

In all seriousness, I believe you should read up a little on the history, philosophy and methodology of science. I think you might just find that the picture you seem to have developed of science as being able to provide absolutes (such as “truth” and “proof”), based on methodological observations and “hard” evidence is about as far from reality as you can get.

Tell that to a biologist or to a paleontologist. Following the same line, a mineral specimen is not proof of evidence of a mineral type, archeological remains are proof of nothing…

Again I repeat, a specimen is NOT proof of a species. Perhaps you should do a little background research on this? I think you should also explore the definitions of the terms you use a little more closely (eg; “type” and “proof”). In science precise definitions matter enormously. They make all the difference between a statement being correct and one that is way off the mark.

One more fallacy. You never actually managed to understand the onus of the burden stuff, right? It is your obligation to show these pictures are the real deal.

I present the pictures. I present the accompanying evidence and research that shows the pictures to be “real”. What more do you want? If you can refute the evidence I present, then please go ahead and we can move on with the debate.

OK. Your assessment is rubbish, and here is why: The oil tank present in the original photographs is plainly not sitting vertically. It's tilted over. Compare the angle of its "vertical" edges with the building or land beyond. If you have difficulty finding a horizon, just compare the lie of the land with the later photo which has another building for comparison. If anything, the original photos have the horizon tilted very slightly to the left, and the tank is even more tilted than it immediately appears. If we can "almost see the top of the tank" that does not mean the camera was "almost" as high as the tank.

Here's my assessment: You don't see the building on the right in the original pictures as it would have made the fake UFO look less dramatic, and you might have been able to see the guy on the roof who just threw the hubcap.

Umm… I think you should compare photo 1 with photo 2 and then you might realise the error in perspective you have just made with your claim that the tank is “not sitting vertically”. Besides, it matters not to my assessment if the tank is tilted.

Of course you give yourself away by spouting such nonsense as a “guy” with a “hubcap”. If you cannot discuss the case seriously, or put forward any serious analysis, then you are merely wasting your own and everyone else’s time.

They look the same to me. Because of the size of the negative (it was 120 film), getting a full frame 8X10 is difficult (if not impossible). As a result, Barauna printed many that were not cropped the same way. This is evident in the P4 shot. The P1 in the Olmos print is faded or was overexposed in the printing process and one can not see the background clouds. This is why he used the P1 Covo print. However, the same data is in the photographs. If you can demonstrate they are different, then feel free to do so. PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT. Are you suggesting that Barauna was manipulating the photographs and leaving out details? Is it possibly he was trying to hide evidence of hoaxing the images? I am not sure you are aware of it but nobody has ever seen the negatives and they were “lost”. The only images that have been preserved are these first generation prints that came from Barauna himself.

There are two issues here. The negative and the print. First I think you actually need to understand what occurs when photons contact a photosensitive medium. With overexposure, the details of the subject become increasingly “lost” (that is no longer “stored” on the medium). This because the number of photons contacting any particular place on the medium will finally add up to a complete “whiteout” (ie; a completely clear negative in which NO detail is discernable – and it is utterly impossible to recover).

Then there is the prints made from the negatives. For various reasons overexposure (or underexposure or various other chemical or photo-reactive or even physical anomalies) can occur at this point as well. However, the same principles apply as with the negative (except it is hard to get fingerprints directly onto a negative before it is removed from the camera. LOL)

So, This is presumably why a number of different prints were made. Given the obvious poor state of the originals, Barauna needed to explore how he could best get the “details’ of the subject most clearly in view – thus we see various “exposures” and cropping differences between photos.

However, one MUST be aware that the data might NOT be “in the photos”. It is very easy to lose photographic information – especially if incorrect exposures are applied, both at the negative and print stages of the process. It is quite obvious that information about the clouds HAS been lost in P4 (making them appear less “substantial”), nevertheless, just enough information remains to allow us to discern patterns. Unfortunately not enough remains for us to directly compare the “substance” of the clouds – this is because (obviously) greater cloud information content is available in P1 than it is in P4. See this analysis for example that refutes Mori’s claims: (http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/clouds.htm)

Prove your point. Demonstrate these cloud patterns are the same between P1 and P4. How can you positively know that the wind is “pretty strong and blowing from right to left of the frame” in two frames? Let me know the wind speed. Oh that might require a calculation, which Mr. Science apparently does not know how to do.

Cloud patterns the same? See analysis provided in the link above.
Wind? Have a look at the lower level clouds in P4. They clearly demonstrate a quite strong wind blowing from right to left of frame. Plus the striated appearance of the upper clouds indicate that there were upper atmosphere winds as well.

Unfortunately the derogatory tone of the last sentence reflects badly on you and JREF rather than me.

Again, show your match. Prove your point. A lot of UFOlogists better than you have tried to perform this “match” but were unable to do so satisfactorily. Show us how you were able to create a match and you still have not described the filter process Mori used and why you can CLAIM it is different.

See here: (http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/clouds.htm)

I agree. I want everyone to download the images and see if they can create a match of any kind. I also would like to see your results. You are making a lot of claims but have produced nothing for everybody to see. It is a lot of hot air.

See here: (http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/clouds.htm)

What a joke. You do not inform yourself. You do not do any research. You parrot the websites that suit your point of view and do not look beyond them. If that is “scientific”, then you are really out of touch with your profession.

Your statements here actually reveal more about your level of professionalism than they do mine.

Many of my references are based on a working knowledge of the case. I THOUGHT you might have a similar level of knowledge but it now is obvious to everybody in this forum that it is not even close. Your opinion is uninformed and has little to do with research.

When you provide your references that is (getting them out of you is like pulling teeth! LOL). I have never claimed any special knowledge. I merely present the evidence as I see it (complete WITH references).

Feel free to produce:

1) Evidence that there is a significant cloud match in P1 and P4
2) Evidence that the winds are blowing from right to left (which is North or west to east or south in these photos).
3) Evidence that the wind is strong. Care to venture a wind speed for us?
4) Evidence that Mori used different filters on the images.

Until you can do so, you are all smoke with no fire.

1) see here: (http://www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/clouds.htm)

2) Have a look at the cloud patterns in (particularly) P4. Lower level winds probably generally north easterly - upper level winds possibly southerly.

3) Given the movement of the clouds between photos it is apparent that the wind is fairly strong. How about 35kts?

4) Oh really… Just compare the originals with what he presented.

My point is these values come from the 3D model of the area created by Carpenter in which he was able to determine the heights of the camera that took the photographs. They are well below the level one would expect for somebody taking a snapshot of a UFO that appeared in the sky (Unless Trent was a VERY SHORT person). This goes with the quote I provided earlier that these heights indicated the photographer was trying to get the maximum elevation on the UFO. This is possibly due to it being a model suspended by some fishing line.

This is mere unfounded assertion. You have provided no evidence or logical causal inference to support your claims. In light of my own assessment, I am entitled to dismiss your unfounded generalisations, particularly as you seem unable to refute MY assessment of the height of the camera!

FYI: My assessment was:
If you look at the photos with a critical eye, you will note that the camera is only slightly below the level of the top of the fuel-oil tank! (That is we can almost see the top of the tank - and in photo 2 the line of the siding board on the house - which is almost level with the height of the top of the tank - forms a continuous line with the top of the tank. If the camera were much lower (like waist high) then that board line would be below the top of the tank).

Keep ignoring the evidence if you like, but merely by doing so you will NOT make it go away…LOL.

…and WHERE is your evidence for this “fishing line”?

I am not going to try and reconstruct Carpenter’s website for you with the images. I suggest you falsify his 3D model with one of your own. Otherwise, your complaints are not based on scientific evaluation but wishful thinking and guesswork.

THIS is a falsification:

” If you look at the photos with a critical eye, you will note that the camera is only slightly below the level of the top of the fuel-oil tank! (That is we can almost see the top of the tank - and in photo 2 the line of the siding board on the house - which is almost level with the height of the top of the tank - forms a continuous line with the top of the tank. If the camera were much lower (like waist high) then that board line would be below the top of the tank).​

It refutes nothing because you provide no measurements or modeling to back it up. It is your gut feel but it is not definitive in any way. Throwing a temper tantrum is not going to be satisfactory. I know Mr. Carpenter and you sir, are no Joel Carpenter. He is a UFO proponent who is very methodical. We have disagreed on several items in the past but the one thing he tries to be is accurate. I am pretty confident that his measurements are accurate and they stand until you can demonstrate they are not..

I have rational logical causal inference to back it up. Carpenter may TRY to be accurate (I am not disputing your assessment of him), but (according to your statements of what he presented) he has failed to notice some very basic things concerning why he is wrong about the height of the camera in this case.

For Carpenter’s analysis to stand, you MUST show my assessment to be incorrect. No amount of pontificating or handwaving generalisation from you will alter that fact.

Quantify the “critical eye”. What is its margin for error? Can you tell me what the height of the tank is? What is the angle at which the camera was pointed? All you are performing is guesswork and does not have any values to represent your claim. Mr. Carpenter created his 3D model of the terrain/yard and then reproduced the angle of the camera based on where the Condon study stated the photographs were taken (based on interviewing the witness and trying to orient the buildings). The only way he discovered that the image could be taken with the camera described is to have the height of the camera being 37” and 42”. Until you can demonstrate those numbers are false with some real data, then your “critical eye” is not that critical and subject to the problems of human error/perception. Do you do all your science by the seat of your pants?

Sometimes, all it takes is the power of observation You seem to think that past researchers are “all knowing, all seeing” and that they have missed nothing. Well you are mistaken. They have missed the simple assessment that I have made as to where the height of the camera is. Perhaps it was too simple for them, wrapped up in minute technical details… perhaps a too obvious a thing for them to have thought of… this often happens in science… people work for centuries on a problem, then some bright spark comes along and says “oh, but you have not seen it from this perspective…” Did you know Newton had a cat? He cut a hole in his door to let it in and out. The cat had kittens… he cut extra smaller holes in his door to let them in and out also… great mind as he was he failed to recognise that the kittens could have also gone through the original hole! LOL.

ETA: Of course by the same token I could also be wrong!