UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Let me be a little bit more clear with this. Dr. Mcabee writes:

"An unusual radar target was detected by the Wellington Air Traffic Control (WATCC) search radar in the apparent vicinity of the visually sighted cluster of lights."
Source: http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html​

So, not even Dr. Mcabee claims that there was radar comfirmation of a visual observation. You are the only one claiming that.

“The captain turned on the weather radar in the mapping mode (M. E. L. Co., EL90; vertical fan beam 40 to 150 down; 3 sec sweep cycle; ranges: 20, 50, 150 nm) and immediately picked up a strong target in the direction of the light at a distance of about 18 nm.

(…)

About this time Fogarty and Grant came up to the flight deck and they, too, saw the bright lights. Grant said his initial impression was of a white-yellow sphere like a ping pong ball in a dark room and illuminated by a ray of light. Grant, who was standing behind Startup, also had a good look at the radar screen. He said that in his mind there was no doubt that the direction to the radar target, as indicated by well defined angle lines on the radar screen, was the same as the direction to the lights.

(…)

During this time Crockett filmed this light using his 100 mm zoom lens. In order to be certain that he obtained images he slowed the frame rate from the normal 24 per second to 10 per second (this would more than double the exposure of each frame). Crockett started filming from his middle seat but, within a minute or so of first seeing the light Crockett got out of his seat and crouched behind the copilot. At one time, to document where the film was taken, he unzoomed to show both the UFO and a small, dimly lit meter that is under the right side window (Figure 12).”​

(Maccabee, B. (2005) A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978. (http://brumac.8k.com/)).

 

[Rramjet]

I stated in reference to the following case:

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)

“So now you are saying that highly trained and eminently reliable observers using precise technical equipment in precisely the manner they were trained for and the equipment was meant to be used… suddenly cannot identify meteors or rockets?

You have gone beyond the bounds of rationality.”​

Oh look, here you are stating that it's irrational to think that "highly trained and eminently reliable observers" using the right equipment could be mistaken.

The claim I was responding to was that the engineers were unable to identify rockets or meteors. I (in turn) claimed that to suggest this (given that is what the engineers were precisely trained to do) was to go “beyond the bounds of rationality”.

This is not the same as stating categorically that they could not have been mistaken. I was merely suggesting that it is implausible to the point of being irrational to suppose that they were mistaken in such a manner.

The distinction is subtle I know, but it exists nevertheless.

I stated in reference to the following case:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(#2)( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx

“You really are the “red herring” expert aren’t you! “Wildly manoeuvring his plane”! Ha! This is of course yet another claim of incompetence on behalf of the pilots! But we KNOW Jafari at least was a Major and a squadron leader…in other words an experienced pilot. Now if you had gone with flying with Puddle Duck and “inverted” your plane in the face of avionics malfunction… then I might be inclined to believe you, but there WERE NO “wild manoeuvres” from the F-4s at the time! Your assertion is just plain incorrect!”​

Hang on, what's this? Oh, you claim that a particular pilot couldn't possibly have done something silly with his plane because he was an experienced pilot. Sounds to me like dismissing a suggested occurrence on the basis of someone's expertise.

This argument is devolving into a silly “You said/he said, No I didn’t/yes you did” type argument - that is leading nowhere at all.

I cannot possibly be expected to remember every precise statement I ever made in this thread and moreover, you expect me to be some sort of superhuman (a type of Mr. Spock, or Mr. Data) in being able to consistently state and maintain a changeless position on every little point of argument that has ever been raised in this thread. I hate to disillusion you, but I am human, I will make misstatements and take missteps from time to time (and probably will in future) - indeed, it would be extraordinary if I had not presented some inconsistencies over the thousands of posts I have submitted over the year this thread has been extant.

I will however admit I was in direct error when in response to your claim:
“…but you have said on several occasions that it is "implausible to suppose that such an expert witness would have made a mistake." and I replied that I had not said that and that you had misinterpreted what I had said.

Clearly I have said that and I therefore apologise to you for indicating you had misinterpreted my statements in that regard.

I could probably find more examples if I searched for more than the 3 minutes it took to find these, but I think the point is made, and I don't want to waste any more time.

It is undoubtable – you could. Nevertheless, my position is largely consistent in that I do contend witnesses can be mistaken (and that we can learn and generalise from those mistakes) - and this is after all the point that kicked off the whole argument when you claimed I had stated precisely the opposite - but while accepting veracity in the generality of that, occasionally I will strongly contend that, based on the available evidence, it is utterly unreasonable to claim that a particular witness (or witnesses) in a particular case was (or could have been) in error.

 

[wollery]

I cannot possibly be expected to remember every precise statement I ever made in this thread and moreover, you expect me to be some sort of superhuman (a type of Mr. Spock, or Mr. Data) in being able to consistently state and maintain a changeless position on every little point of argument that has ever been raised in this thread.

I expect no such thing. You are the one who stated categorically that you never said any such thing, when you could have said, "I cannot recall making such a statement, but if I did I was wrong." and it would have ended there.

I hate to disillusion you, but I am human, I will make misstatements and take missteps from time to time (and probably will in future) - indeed, it would be extraordinary if I had not presented some inconsistencies over the thousands of posts I have submitted over the year this thread has been extant.

I'm not in the least bit disillusioned. Everybody make mistakes and misstatements from time to time, it's part of being human.

I will however admit I was in direct error when in response to your claim:
“…but you have said on several occasions that it is "implausible to suppose that such an expert witness would have made a mistake." and I replied that I had not said that and that you had misinterpreted what I had said.

Clearly I have said that and I therefore apologise to you for indicating you had misinterpreted my statements in that regard.

Fair enough.

It is undoubtable – you could. Nevertheless, my position is largely consistent in that I do contend witnesses can be mistaken (and that we can learn and generalise from those mistakes) - and this is after all the point that kicked off the whole argument when you claimed I had stated precisely the opposite - but while accepting veracity in the generality of that, occasionally I will strongly contend that, based on the available evidence, it is utterly unreasonable to claim that a particular witness (or witnesses) in a particular case was (or could have been) in error.

Right, glad that's cleared up

 

[Jocce]

“The captain turned on the weather radar in the mapping mode (M. E. L. Co., EL90; vertical fan beam 40 to 150 down; 3 sec sweep cycle; ranges: 20, 50, 150 nm) and immediately picked up a strong target in the direction of the light at a distance of about 18 nm.

(…)

About this time Fogarty and Grant came up to the flight deck and they, too, saw the bright lights. Grant said his initial impression was of a white-yellow sphere like a ping pong ball in a dark room and illuminated by a ray of light. Grant, who was standing behind Startup, also had a good look at the radar screen. He said that in his mind there was no doubt that the direction to the radar target, as indicated by well defined angle lines on the radar screen, was the same as the direction to the lights.

Anecdotal. Got anything else?

(…)

During this time Crockett filmed this light using his 100 mm zoom lens. In order to be certain that he obtained images he slowed the frame rate from the normal 24 per second to 10 per second (this would more than double the exposure of each frame). Crockett started filming from his middle seat but, within a minute or so of first seeing the light Crockett got out of his seat and crouched behind the copilot. At one time, to document where the film was taken, he unzoomed to show both the UFO and a small, dimly lit meter that is under the right side window (Figure 12).”​

(Maccabee, B. (2005) A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978. (http://brumac.8k.com/)).

How come that you can't post anything but anecdotal evidence?

First textblock is a retelling about what the captain did and saw.

Second textblock is a retelling about what Fogarty and Grant saw.

Third textblock is a retelling about what Crocket did

Why can't you even post first hand, unedited, uninterpreted witness statements?

 

[Jocce]

I stated in reference to the following case:

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)

“So now you are saying that highly trained and eminently reliable observers using precise technical equipment in precisely the manner they were trained for and the equipment was meant to be used… suddenly cannot identify meteors or rockets?​

From Project Twinkle final report: http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm
"Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no information was gained."​

 

[Rramjet]

From Project Twinkle final report: http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm
"Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no information was gained."

Throughout 1948 and 1949 UFOs (green “fireballs”) were repeatedly observed in the southwest US around top secret nuclear research facilities (Los Alamos, Sandia, White Sands) and by 1950 Project Twinkle was set up at White Sands in an effort to determine what they were (for example, were the Russians spying on US nuclear research facilities?).

Using cinetheodolites, eventually on 27 April 1950 a successful azimuth and elevation angle was made on four objects. It was determined that the objects were at approximately 150,000ft and about 30ft in size (from the summary report submitted by the Data Reduction Unit). Notably the objects were filmed (and triangulated) on other occasions - but because there was usually more than one object observed, the mathematicians, being extremely conservative, ruled that it could not be certain that on most occasions the separate observation stations had the same (individual) object under observation at the same time (ruling out successful triangulation and thus ruling out size and distance estimates from those observations) … all except that one occasion (above) that is, when they were certain - and size and distance estimates were thus possible.

Now it is clear that “information” WAS “gained”. A great deal of it! And critically repeatedly …So why did Elterman (who was NOT part of the research team) write a report claiming first that “simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made” (when clearly on at least 27 May a simultaneous sighting was achieved) and second that “no information was gained” (when clearly information was gained – including film evidence probably every time a sighting was made)? To be generous, Elterman simply could not have been in possession of all the facts in the case. Perhaps he was simply not given critical pieces of information … Otherwise …well …lets just maintain our generosity in consideration of Elterman and his “report” shall we?

 

[Jocce]

Using cinetheodolites, eventually on 27 April 1950 a successful azimuth and elevation angle

One data point out of the two necessary for a complete triangulation came from station P10, that is correct.

Notably the objects were filmed (and triangulated) on other occasions - but because there was usually more than one object observed, the mathematicians, being extremely conservative, ruled that it could not be certain that on most occasions the separate observation stations had the same (individual) object under observation at the same time (ruling out successful triangulation and thus ruling out size and distance estimates from those observations)

Bolded part is incorrect and you yourself explain why in the rest of your post.

all except that one occasion (above) that is, when they were certain - and size and distance estimates were thus possible.

Yeah, P10 made a complete alt/az reading and M7 managed to make one single alt reading but did not get the az. This explains the rough estimates. Unfortunately, they don't give error estimates so I can only conclude that further analysis showed that the data gathered was too unreliable (ie. error margins large) to be included in a final report. That would explain the "no information was gained". Source: http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html

 

[Rramjet]

Yeah, P10 made a complete alt/az reading and M7 managed to make one single alt reading but did not get the az. This explains the rough estimates. Unfortunately, they don't give error estimates so I can only conclude that further analysis showed that the data gathered was too unreliable (ie. error margins large) to be included in a final report. That would explain the "no information was gained". Source: http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html

The document in question reads:

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.

2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.

3.From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c).The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
​

In reference to my "and triangulated" which you bolded:

Bolded part is incorrect and you yourself explain why in the rest of your post.

Actually I stated that other triangulations were made, but given the number of objects involved (in relatively close proximity to each other) the mathematicians could not be sure each station had a focus on the same object and thus they erred on the side of (extreme in my opinion) caution.

That being stated and contrary to what Elterman “reported” it is clear that much “information” was available and it is also clear that on at least one occasion “simultaneous sightings by both cameras” was made. Thus Elterman’s denial of these facts rings rather hollow - and it is on those denials you based your objections to the case. By the way, what the objects were remains a mystery to this day – and it was Elteman’s “report” that was used to justify the shutting down of the research effort!

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, do you understand why a single azimuth reading from station M7 makes the result less accurate than it would have been if altitude and size information had also obtained from M7?

Do you understand how it allows for a greater possibility of error on the part of the observers?

 

[Jocce]

together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

Yeah, sorry, Typo from me.

Actually I stated that other triangulations were made, but given the number of objects involved (in relatively close proximity to each other) the mathematicians could not be sure each station had a focus on the same object and thus they erred on the side of (extreme in my opinion) caution.

Yeah, so no triangulations could be made. That's what I pointed out.

That being stated and contrary to what Elterman “reported” it is clear that much “information” was available and it is also clear that on at least one occasion “simultaneous sightings by both cameras” was made.

1 alt/az and 1 az, that's 3/4 of what is needed to get a complete triangulation. Would you say that increases or decreases the errors in the calculations.

Thus Elterman’s denial of these facts rings rather hollow - and it is on those denials you based your objections to the case. By the way, what the objects were remains a mystery to this day – and it was Elteman’s “report” that was used to justify the shutting down of the research effort!

I don't find it unlikely that he deemed the error margins too wide and thus decided to not use it in his final report. Or are you saying that it is evidence of a cover up?

 

[Rramjet]

Yeah, sorry, Typo from me.

No problems, we all occasionally fall victim. I just thought I better make sure we were “on the same page” (literally and metaphorically).

Yeah, so no triangulations could be made. That's what I pointed out.

There is a difference between “no triangulations were made” and “no triangulations except one could be confirmed”.

Rramjet, do you understand why a single azimuth reading from station M7 makes the result less accurate than it would have been if altitude and size information had also obtained from M7?

Do you understand how it allows for a greater possibility of error on the part of the observers?

1 alt/az and 1 az, that's 3/4 of what is needed to get a complete triangulation. Would you say that increases or decreases the errors in the calculations.

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0571160u4124pj1/)
(http://en.mimi.hu/astronomy/triangulation.html)
(http://gisceu.net/PDF/U105.PDF)

On my reading of these documents it is entirely possible to conduct a successful triangulation with the data gathered. That is, enough parameters were present to determine the stated results. That being said, obviously the more parameters that need to be calculated (rather than read directly from the data) the greater the error margins will be. However, given the expertise of the researchers and mathematicians involved, it would be unsustainable to argue that error margins were not accounted for in the presented (summary) results. Indeed the statements in the summary results: ( “The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.” and “The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.”) strongly indicate that error margins were accounted for (ie; the term “approximately” was used) and (also considering the required expertise - in that the analysts were trained to crunch the numbers from rocket and missile tests, where error margins are critical), we may be certain that in the complete report, error margins would have been stated and accounted for directly.

I don't find it unlikely that he deemed the error margins too wide and thus decided to not use it in his final report. Or are you saying that it is evidence of a cover up?

Given that Elterman directly stated that “no information” was gained (when clearly a great deal of information was) and that “simultaneous sightings by both cameras” were not made (when this is clearly an incorrect assessment), then I can only assume Elteman did not have access to all the available data. Elterman’s report was then used to justify the cessation of the research project (as evidence that the project could no longer be justified).

Whether that constitutes a “cover-up” or a “stuff-up” I will leave to the readers to judge.

 

[Rramjet]

How come that you can't post anything but anecdotal evidence?

First textblock is a retelling about what the captain did and saw.

Second textblock is a retelling about what Fogarty and Grant saw.

Third textblock is a retelling about what Crocket did

Why can't you even post first hand, unedited, uninterpreted witness statements?

This case has a great deal more than mere anecdotal evidence going for it. Follow the links below:

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
The Kaikoura UFO sighting continues to baffle, 30 years on
Monday, 20 October 2008, 8:46pm
Source: TV3
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
Original footage
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3iq4R8MgM)
The following articles can be seen on Dr Maccabee’s website: (http://brumac.8k.com/)
1. Challenging the Paradigm!’
(http://brumac.8k.com/ChallengeParadigm/Challenging the Paradigm.htm)
2. New Zealand Sightings (of December 31 1978).
3. New Zealand Radar Sighting.
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
4. Flashing Light Film from New Zealand! (the so-called ‘squid boat!’)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
5. Squid Boat
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)

As to unedited witness statements, see (for example):

Startup, W. and Illingworth, N. (1980). The Kaikoura UFOs. Auckland: Hodder and Stoughton.
Fogarty, Q. (1982). Let’s Hope They’re Friendly. Australia: Angus and Robertson.
Guthrie-Jones, D. (02/01/1979) Airforce put on UFO alert. The Melbourne Sun/Herald.
Fogarty, Q. (1979) Australian Playboy. August. p.52

 

[RoboTimbo]

This case has a great deal more than mere anecdotal evidence going for it. Follow the links below:

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)

You never did answer my question. Is it some particular thing? Or is it still just a UFO?

 

[wollery]

There is a difference between “no triangulations were made” and “no triangulations except one could be confirmed”.

But functionally there's no difference between "only one triangulation could be made", and, "no triangulations except one could be confirmed".

(http://www.springerlink.com/content/k0571160u4124pj1/)
(http://en.mimi.hu/astronomy/triangulation.html)
(http://gisceu.net/PDF/U105.PDF)

On my reading of these documents it is entirely possible to conduct a successful triangulation with the data gathered. That is, enough parameters were present to determine the stated results. That being said, obviously the more parameters that need to be calculated (rather than read directly from the data) the greater the error margins will be. However, given the expertise of the researchers and mathematicians involved, it would be unsustainable to argue that error margins were not accounted for in the presented (summary) results.

Without the original report it is, of course, impossible to know for certain, but I seriously doubt that they wouldn't have calculated an error margin. However, we still know nothing at all about what the size of the calculated error might have been, so it's all just speculation.

Indeed the statements in the summary results: ( “The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.” and “The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.”) strongly indicate that error margins were accounted for (ie; the term “approximately” was used) and (also considering the required expertise - in that the analysts were trained to crunch the numbers from rocket and missile tests, where error margins are critical), we may be certain that in the complete report, error margins would have been stated and accounted for directly.

It's also a word you would use as a scientist if you hadn't calculated an error.

Given that Elterman directly stated that “no information” was gained (when clearly a great deal of information was) and that “simultaneous sightings by both cameras” were not made (when this is clearly an incorrect assessment), then I can only assume Elteman did not have access to all the available data. Elterman’s report was then used to justify the cessation of the research project (as evidence that the project could no longer be justified).

A great deal of information?

All we have is one triangulation, calculated from less than full measurements, with no associated error.

If the error was large then Elterman may have considered it worthless as information, and thus assessed that no useful information was gained.

Whether that constitutes a “cover-up” or a “stuff-up” I will leave to the readers to judge.

 

[Jocce]

There is a difference between “no triangulations were made” and “no triangulations except one could be confirmed”.

I don't think you understand. No complete triangulations could be done, that is a fact not even you can argue against. Maybe this makes it clearer:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=19868&stc=1&d=1287986744[/qimg]

obviously the more parameters that need to be calculated (rather than read directly from the data) the greater the error margins will be. However, given the expertise of the researchers and mathematicians involved, it would be unsustainable to argue that error margins were not accounted for in the presented (summary) results.

How large were the error margins?

Indeed the statements in the summary results: ( “The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.” and “The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.”) strongly indicate that error margins were accounted for (ie; the term “approximately” was used)

So was it 100 000 ft up or 200 000? Was it 35 feet or 25 feet in diameter? 20?

we may be certain that in the complete report, error margins would have been stated and accounted for directly.

No.

Given that Elterman directly stated that “no information” was gained (when clearly a great deal of information was)

So far I've seen estimates of how high one of the objects flew, estimate of that objects size and a claim that it flew fast (but noone knows how fast). If you have more than that please post.

 

[Rramjet]

But functionally there's no difference between "only one triangulation could be made", and, "no triangulations except one could be confirmed".

We know that more than one triangulation was made. It was just that on an almost impossibly strict criteria (a criteria no doubt born from the usual nature of the work the scientists and analysts undertook – that of tracking and recording data from rocket and missile tests, where accuracy and precision was required to be almost impossibly high) all but one triangulation was rejected. Remember the objects were calculated to be at 150,000 feet (an altitude where man had not got close to reaching an the beginning of the 1950s), were in the order of 20 to 30 ft in diameter, and grouped together while moving at high speed. That the scientists and analysts even got a single triangulation that they could be positive about (meaning that an individual object was the focus) was a tribute to their skills. That they rejected the rest because they could not be certain the same object was the focus of both stations is a testament to their desire for accuracy.

Without the original report it is, of course, impossible to know for certain, but I seriously doubt that they wouldn't have calculated an error margin. However, we still know nothing at all about what the size of the calculated error might have been, so it's all just speculation.

Why do you “seriously doubt” that the scientists and analysts did not account for error margins in their calculations? Do you doubt their qualifications? Do you doubt that they were not up to the task of undertaking the precise research and analysis they were obviously trained to undertake? What precisely is it that makes you “doubt” that the scientists and analysts did not conduct their work to the same high standard that was so obviously usually required of them?

A great deal of information?

Yes. Don’t forget that these were cinetheodilites and film was taken each time a research effort was undertaken. Don’t forget that the research was set up in the first place because of repeated sightings of the objects. Don’t forget that each triangulation produced data that was recorded and just because it was not considered sufficient for triangulation purposes does not mean that it did not indicate the existence of the objects.

All we have is one triangulation, calculated from less than full measurements, with no associated error.

You make the least out of the most (or is that the most out of the least)... either way you attempt to cast doubt on the case because of some technical points that in the end are quite irrelevant. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Under almost impossibly strict criteria a triangulation was achieved – and we have the summary results of that triangulation. The point is that all the information we do have points to small objects, travelling at high speed at an altitude greater than humanly possible at the time.

If the error was large then Elterman may have considered it worthless as information, and thus assessed that no useful information was gained.

That’s merely unfounded speculation. Clearly also the triangulation was “useful” (it provided size and altitude estimates) – and to maintain that the scientists and analysts, having rejected other triangulations on strict technical grounds would “forget” (or deliberately not account for) error margins, quite simply beggars belief. Yours is simply an unfounded and thus scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved when there are no plausible grounds for doing so.

 

[Rramjet]

I don't think you understand. No complete triangulations could be done, that is a fact not even you can argue against. Maybe this makes it clearer:

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.

2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.

3.From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c).The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
​

How large were the error margins?

…to maintain that the scientists and analysts, having rejected other triangulations on strict technical grounds would “forget” (or deliberately not account for) error margins, quite simply beggars belief. Yours is simply an unfounded and thus scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved when there are no plausible grounds for doing so.

So was it 100 000 ft up or 200 000? Was it 35 feet or 25 feet in diameter? 20?

Read the summary report (above).

So far I've seen estimates of how high one of the objects flew, estimate of that objects size and a claim that it flew fast (but noone knows how fast). If you have more than that please post.

“Certainly information "is gained" when a number of qualified observers simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes. There is useful information even if a "proper triangulation" is not accomplished. And there is even more information gained if a proper triangulation is accomplished...and one was accomplished, only Eltermann didn't mention it!” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

“At the bottom of the report to Dr. Mirachi is a list of enclosures which shows that two reports (Data Red Report #1 and Data Red Report #2) and three films (P-10 and P-8 of May 24 and P-10 of April 27) were sent to Mirarchi along with a map of the Holloman range showing, I presume, the locations of the cameras. There is a hand written note at the right of the list of films which says "Film on repository with AFCRL" and a few other undecipherable scribbles. Attempts (in the late 1970's) to locate these films failed. (Mirarchi died in the 1960's.)” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=19868&stc=1&d=1287986744[/qimg]

Station P10 provided a direction and an elevation, station M7 also provided a direction. Using basic trigonometry one can then calculate the altitude and from the film one can then estimate the size. Oh…and on four objects no less!

 

[wollery]

We know that more than one triangulation was made.

No, we know that a lot of observations were made, but only one triangulation was possible.

It was just that on an almost impossibly strict criteria (a criteria no doubt born from the usual nature of the work the scientists and analysts undertook – that of tracking and recording data from rocket and missile tests, where accuracy and precision was required to be almost impossibly high) all but one triangulation was rejected.

You describe being able to tell whether or not the observations from two different stations are of the same object as "impossibly strict"? I describe it as a basic requirement of triangulation. Oh well, each to their own.

Remember the objects were calculated to be at 150,000 feet (an altitude where man had not got close to reaching an the beginning of the 1950s), were in the order of 20 to 30 ft in diameter, and grouped together while moving at high speed. That the scientists and analysts even got a single triangulation that they could be positive about (meaning that an individual object was the focus) was a tribute to their skills. That they rejected the rest because they could not be certain the same object was the focus of both stations is a testament to their desire for accuracy.

Yes, they did the right thing in rejecting most of the data.

Why do you “seriously doubt” that the scientists and analysts did not account for error margins in their calculations?

Because, as you keep pointing out, they were professionals. It makes sense that they conducted an error analysis.

Do you doubt their qualifications? Do you doubt that they were not up to the task of undertaking the precise research and analysis they were obviously trained to undertake? What precisely is it that makes you “doubt” that the scientists and analysts did not conduct their work to the same high standard that was so obviously usually required of them?

I think you need to read what I said again. I'll give you a hint, it's a double negative.

Yes. Don’t forget that these were cinetheodilites and film was taken each time a research effort was undertaken.

Most of the data was useless for triangulation, as demonstrated by the fact that they rejected all but one measurement.

Don’t forget that the research was set up in the first place because of repeated sightings of the objects. Don’t forget that each triangulation produced data that was recorded and just because it was not considered sufficient for triangulation purposes does not mean that it did not indicate the existence of the objects.

I haven't forgotten. But don't you forget that the only hard data we have is one single triangulation.

You make the least out of the most (or is that the most out of the least)... either way you attempt to cast doubt on the case because of some technical points that in the end are quite irrelevant. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

And you seem to miss the trees for the forest. Technical points are almost never irrelevant, particularly when they cast doubt on the result.

Under almost impossibly strict criteria a triangulation was achieved – and we have the summary results of that triangulation.

Again, describing the most basic necessity of triangulation as "almost impossibly strict criteria".

The point is that all the information we do have points to small objects, travelling at high speed at an altitude greater than humanly possible at the time.

And "all the information we do have" is one triangulation with no associated error.

That’s merely unfounded speculation. Clearly also the triangulation was “useful” (it provided size and altitude estimates) – and to maintain that the scientists and analysts, having rejected other triangulations on strict technical grounds would “forget” (or deliberately not account for) error margins, quite simply beggars belief.

I have never maintained that they didn't account for errors, in fact quite the opposite. All I have said is that we do not know what the errors were. We lack information and so are unable to assess how accurate the triangulation was.

Yours is simply an unfounded and thus scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved when there are no plausible grounds for doing so.

Again, I have never attacked their qualifications, I merely point out the blatantly obvious - that we don't have all the information. This is an incredibly important point, and to dismiss it as you do is unscientific and appears extremely biased.

And so, once again, we're basically back to your assertion that they were professionals, so they had to be right.

 

[wollery]

…to maintain that the scientists and analysts, having rejected other triangulations on strict technical grounds would “forget” (or deliberately not account for) error margins, quite simply beggars belief. Yours is simply an unfounded and thus scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved when there are no plausible grounds for doing so.

So now simply asking what the error was is a "scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved"? It really sounds like you're getting desperate Rramjet. It's a simple question.

How large were the error margins?

(For those of you playing along at home, the answer is, of course, "We have no idea.")

Read the summary report (above).

It just says "approximately".

“Certainly information "is gained" when a number of qualified observers simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes.

Yes, but what information, and how useful?

There is useful information even if a "proper triangulation" is not accomplished.

What information, and how useful is it?

And there is even more information gained if a proper triangulation is accomplished...and one was accomplished, only Eltermann didn't mention it!” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

And we have no idea why. As you pointed out in your previous post any speculation is unfounded.

Station P10 provided a direction and an elevation, station M7 also provided a direction. Using basic trigonometry one can then calculate the altitude and from the film one can then estimate the size. Oh…and on four objects no less!

How large was the error?

 

[Jocce]

We know that more than one triangulation was made. It was just that on an almost impossibly strict criteria (a criteria no doubt born from the usual nature of the work the scientists and analysts undertook – that of tracking and recording data from rocket and missile tests, where accuracy and precision was required to be almost impossibly high) all but one triangulation was rejected. Remember the objects were calculated to be at 150,000 feet (an altitude where man had not got close to reaching an the beginning of the 1950s), were in the order of 20 to 30 ft in diameter, and grouped together while moving at high speed. That the scientists and analysts even got a single triangulation that they could be positive about (meaning that an individual object was the focus) was a tribute to their skills. That they rejected the rest because they could not be certain the same object was the focus of both stations is a testament to their desire for accuracy.

This is a very convoluted way of admitting that multiple triangulations were not made. So then we agree that we have one partial triangulation?

Why do you “seriously doubt” that the scientists and analysts did not account for error margins in their calculations?

When you say "account for error margins" what do you mean? Wollery is asking for the actual error margin, as in a number. We haven't seen such a number yet.

Do you doubt their qualifications? Do you doubt that they were not up to the task of undertaking the precise research and analysis they were obviously trained to undertake? What precisely is it that makes you “doubt” that the scientists and analysts did not conduct their work to the same high standard that was so obviously usually required of them?

One of the differences lies in the fact that when doing what they were trained to do they knew exactly where and when a rocket would appear and could prepare beforehand. That is not the case when you're waiting for something that might show up at some time in any direction.

Yes. Don’t forget that these were cinetheodilites and film was taken each time a research effort was undertaken. Don’t forget that the research was set up in the first place because of repeated sightings of the objects. Don’t forget that each triangulation produced data that was recorded and just because it was not considered sufficient for triangulation purposes does not mean that it did not indicate the existence of the objects.

You claim that a lot of informatioj was gained, then I'm sure you would like to list the information that was gathered. Speed, altitude, size, colour, material and what else you might have.

you attempt to cast doubt on the case because of some technical points that in the end are quite irrelevant. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. Under almost impossibly strict criteria a triangulation was achieved – and we have the summary results of that triangulation.

There are technical points that affects the accuracy of the size- and altitude estimations. I know you don't want to admit that and prefer to pretend that the error margins are insignificant. But, you don't know that because we don't have any error calculations.

That’s merely unfounded speculation. Clearly also the triangulation was “useful” (it provided size and altitude estimates) – and to maintain that the scientists and analysts, having rejected other triangulations on strict technical grounds would “forget” (or deliberately not account for) error margins, quite simply beggars belief. Yours is simply an unfounded and thus scurrilous attack on the qualifications of the researchers involved when there are no plausible grounds for doing so.

A true scientist would want to see those error calculations and not assume that they are negligable when matching against manmade objects. You're not a true scientist now. You're just guessing that it's a cover up.