UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

I have never seen a person so incapable to grasp a concept so simple.

Lovely… is this how you respond to everyone with whom you have a difference of opinion?

If the analyst can not determine it, how can a witness make such a determination from his observation? What makes a witness able to accurately determine the direction of travel and the analyst incapable of doing so? Your logic is underwhelming and you completely misrepresent what Tatum wrote.

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

Tatum’s thesis is that because it is possible (perhaps even likely) that witnesses will be in error, then any analyst who purports to have determined a trajectory based on a single observer’s testimony will most likely be in error. In that respect he states that it is (practically) impossible to determine that one has an accurate trajectory based on a single eyewitness observation.

Tatum is NOT contending it is impossible for a single observer to accurately estimate the true trajectory. Clearly it is absolutely possible for that to occur – it is just that subsequent analysis can never rely on that single observation because it is impossible (without corroborating evidence) to know if that single observation is accurate or not.

That is the specific reason why Tatum requires (at the very least) multiple eyewitness observations (but also) a set of characteristic criteria that a good investigator should elicit information on from the eyewitness.

First of all, Campine was driving in his car. Tatum says that is a condition for making unreliable estimates (just like being in an airplane).

Campine saw the fireball from his car – he would have noted a general impression of the direction (away, toward, across, left, right). He then stopped the car and observed (and photographed) the resulting debris trail. Given his in-car observations and the many environmental cues available to him, it would have been then possible for him to estimate a general heading – which he did – of 110 degrees. Tatum states that a general guide is that eyewitnesses are out by around ten or more degrees – making Campine’s estimate (accounting for potential error) consistent with a Kecksburg trajectory.

We know that the photographs show the error was more like 45 degrees (azimuth of about 155 degrees). This is not in the direction of Kecksburg.

C&K’s analysis is ultimately flawed because it does not make an accounting of measurement error.

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

Lovely… is that the way you address all those with whom you have a difference of opinion?

Are you calling me a liar again?

Again? So what do we call that – a backhanded ad hominem? What part of “misread or misinterpret” don’t you understand?

So far, the only person who has had problems getting the facts correct seems to be you.

Lovely… is that the way you address all those with whom you have a difference of opinion?

I gave the link a long time ago to Bob Young’s commentary on the subject:

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

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

Actually I meant you should supply the actual report on which you base your assertions – not merely another UFO debunker’s second hand opinion on the matter. First hand sources are critical in such matters – we have of course had this conversation before AstroP – however, it seems you can demand first hand sources from me – even while you persist in never supplying them yourself.

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

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

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

Howard expressed an opinion – if you have access to Google Earth and utilise 3D you can see that the “ravine” is more of a shallow depression with gently sloping sides – and certainly easily accessible from the Kecksburg end…

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

Sure, the ravine is fairly heavily wooded – a truck makes its way into the entrance of the ravine and maybe the object was light enough to be carried by a few men…

1. This event took over a day to execute and they had an airforce base about 15 miles away from the crash site!

Sure, but the plane was completely destroyed – they had a lot of pieces to pick up…Kecksburg – according to reports, just a single object.

2. The event is documented.

The activity in and around Kecksburg is documented also…

3. The crash site was located and debris from the crash still exists today.

Your point being?

1. No military base that was even close. You chose locations over a hundred miles away.

I think the nearest was a lot closer than that!

2. Crash site was cleaned up in less than 12 hours in the dark

What was there to “clean up”? The single object was reportedly removed.

3. No documentation can be found to support the operation

Yeah, cover-ups are like that…

4. No debris/impact effects from the object can be found.

Some broken trees, some scuffed up ground… according to reports it did not leave a crater…

5. There is no evidence of the military’s passage into the woods (Peter Merlin has been able to locate campsites at past AF crash sites from the soldiers and airmen who were present).

Ummm… I don’t think anyone is claiming they camped there AstroP…

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

A single relatively small object versus a completely destroyed airplane?

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

A cover-up is a cover-up AstroP. It demonstrates a willingness and a capability.

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

That is your assertion, the eyewitnesses tell a different story.

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

In 1965 it was officially reported that nothing was found. There are documented media reports of cordons and searches. There clearly was a military presence (persons from the 662nd radar squadron at the very least). Nobody made a concerted effort in 1965 to interview the residents of Kecksburg, the official denial was accepted and people and the media quickly moved on – leaving the residents to argue among themselves. Stan Gordon states:

“The Kecksburg incident remained a topic for area radio talk shows for years as it does today. As the years passed, I would receive various accounts from sources who claimed knowledge of the event. Many of those involved with the incident even today, wish to remain anonymous. Others have gone public and stand by their accounts. Some have faced personal attacks and ridicule. Many important witnesses have passed away.” (http://www.stangordon.info/kecksburg.htm).

The story and the witnesses did not suddenly appear years later, they were there discussing and telling their stories all along.

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

I stated in my previous post that I was willing to reserve judgement on whether anything was found and carted away, but there is no denying all the unusual activity of the night. The military deny everything, the eyewitnesses tell a different story.

 

[Akhenaten]

The story and the witnesses did not suddenly appear years later, they were there discussing and telling their stories all along.

Nobody, least of all Astrophotographer, is claiming that the witnesses have suddenly appeared, simply that the story has evolved. Will you try and claim that witnesses will invariable tell the same story, letter-perfect and unembellished for over 50 years?

I stated in my previous post that I was willing to reserve judgement on whether anything was found and carted away, but there is no denying all the unusual activity of the night. The military deny everything, the eyewitnesses tell a different story.

And the military always lies and eyewitnesses always present the complete, consistent and unembellished facts of the matter?

Why on Earth would you want to believe that?

 

[wollery]

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

It's pretty simple, but I guess I'll have to try to explain it even more simply.

What Tatum is saying is that it is impossible for a single observer to determine the direction of motion of the fireball, and he goes into detail to explain why (simply put it's a 2-D projection of 3-D motion). However, what a single observer can determine to within about 10 degrees is the direction of the fireball relative to the observer.

That is, Tatum is saying that a single observer could determine that the fireball was to their north-east, but not whether it was travelling north-west or south-east.

If you take two observations, (for instance) one from an observer in New York who sees the fireball to the north, and one in Toronto who sees it to the south, then you know it passed between them. Now add an observation a little later from an observer in Chicago, who sees the fireball to the south, and you can already determine that the fireball is travelling roughly south-west, albeit with a fairly large error. However, add more observations, allowing for errors in timing and sighted direction and you can determine a reasonably accurate trajectory for the fireball, all from individuals who could not possibly make a determination of the trajectory by themselves. Furthermore, the larger the number of sightings you have the smaller the final error in the computed trajectory will be.

The rest of your argument is linguistic semantics that don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, because they're predicated on your misunderstanding of Tatum's basic argument.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Tatum’s thesis is that because it is possible (perhaps even likely) that witnesses will be in error, then any analyst who purports to have determined a trajectory based on a single observer’s testimony will most likely be in error. In that respect he states that it is (practically) impossible to determine that one has an accurate trajectory based on a single eyewitness observation.

Yet you seem to think it is entirely possible to accurately determine a trajectory based on two data points from one observer. Can you explain your logic here? BTW, I want to thank Wollery for saving me the space of trying to explain this all again.

Tatum is NOT contending it is impossible for a single observer to accurately estimate the true trajectory. Clearly it is absolutely possible for that to occur – it is just that subsequent analysis can never rely on that single observation because it is impossible (without corroborating evidence) to know if that single observation is accurate or not.

Interesting…although Tatum refers to it as a GEOMETRIC FACT and it is IMPOSSIBLE, you seem to think there is room for doubt. Can you explain exactly why you think he is wrong here?
Additionally, if you are correct that Tatum stated that he was only referring to analysts being unable to compute a trajectory from one observation point then you can’t draw the conclusion that it went in a southeast direction because you are not the witness. You are an analyst who is using two data points from one location to draw a conclusion about a direction of travel. The witness just gave an azimuth and no real direction of travel.

Campine saw the fireball from his car – he would have noted a general impression of the direction (away, toward, across, left, right). He then stopped the car and observed (and photographed) the resulting debris trail. Given his in-car observations and the many environmental cues available to him, it would have been then possible for him to estimate a general heading – which he did – of 110 degrees. Tatum states that a general guide is that eyewitnesses are out by around ten or more degrees – making Campine’s estimate (accounting for potential error) consistent with a Kecksburg trajectory.

So you dismiss Tatum’s warning about people in cars? It is strange that you would do that. Of course, we know the transit readings by VDC and Krause with the witness determined the truth azimuth to the end point to be about 155 degrees. Are you suggesting their error in measurement was 25 degrees when using the photographs and a transit?

Additionally, the key words are “10 or MORE degrees”. It does not fix a firm value of 10 degrees at all. This is consistent with the meteor plotting study I described previously. People are going to make errors and those errors can be large depending on several variables (stability of observing platform, was meteor seen in center of vision, familiarity with sky/surroundings, etc.). Each individual is going to have a margin of error based on their abilities to estimate direction. It becomes harder when one is in a moving vehicle, which is why Tatum felt that individuals in vehicles were not reliable enough for estimating azimuth. BTW, where is your analysis for measurement error in this observation?

C&K’s analysis is ultimately flawed because it does not make an accounting of measurement error.

As is your analysis. I put far greater weight in what they did than what you have presented here.

Actually I meant you should supply the actual report on which you base your assertions – not merely another UFO debunker’s second hand opinion on the matter. First hand sources are critical in such matters – we have of course had this conversation before AstroP – however, it seems you can demand first hand sources from me – even while you persist in never supplying them yourself.

Bob Young researched the subject just as much as Stan Gordon (in my opinion he did a better job of it). However, you now imply that he is lying even though he provided the source of his information. Meanwhile, Gordon, who provides no relevant sources or details, is blindly accepted as being correct. Are these the standards of evidence you are employing?

Howard expressed an opinion – if you have access to Google Earth and utilise 3D you can see that the “ravine” is more of a shallow depression with gently sloping sides – and certainly easily accessible from the Kecksburg end…

Really? Maybe my topographic maps are a bit off. I see lots of woods in a “gully/ravine” that drops between two hills about 200 feet.



Is it a gentle slope? Maybe from a distance but I put the opinion of somebody who has been there over somebody who has never been there or looked closely at the terrain.

BTW, the circle is where I have been told years ago where the object was located. I don't recall the exact source. The stream cuts across and is lined with trees. Today, there is a driveway to a house there but in 1993 (you can access the aerial image using google earth), there was no house and that path is not there. The only access road seems to be a small dirt path/road that might be a bit too narrow for a large military vehicle.

Sure, the ravine is fairly heavily wooded – a truck makes its way into the entrance of the ravine and maybe the object was light enough to be carried by a few men…

Hmm….so now it is a ravine and not a gentle slope? “was light enough”? Really? Are you speculating here? According to Bulebush and Romansky, it was in a stream and semi-buried in the dirt. The object’s dimensions were 8X12 feet (and that is the smallest size I have seen given). Does that sound like something light enough to lift up by a few people and carted through the woods? How did they maneuver an object so large around all those trees? One must consider the more likely scenario that something that dug itself into the dirt was a bit more heavier than a few hundred pounds and would require a vehicle that had some horsepower to pull it out. This is the common story told by the witnesses, where they describe a wrecker and a tractor with flatbed trailer heading down into the ravine.

The activity in and around Kecksburg is documented also…

Yes it was. However, it tells a story of nothing being found. Can you provide any documentation from 1965 that states something was definitely found and carted away? In the A-12 case, the documentation by the military outlined what transpired and the cover-up involved. It does not reflect the story told to the public and it was never expected to be read outside of military circles (FOIA did not come into being until 1966). However, in the Kecksburg case, the documentation by the military describes the story told to the public. There is no indication that a cover-up was ordered or even occurred.

In your response to this: No military base that was even close. You chose locations over a hundred miles away.

I think the nearest was a lot closer than that!

The last time I checked, the closest location YOU gave was Letterkenny Army Depot. That is 123 road miles according to Google maps. I don’t include Oakdale simply because it was an AF radar station and does not qualify for the equipment described.

What was there to “clean up”? The single object was reportedly removed.

Remember the next morning, the media went down and could find no trace of anything. You have to have the clean up crew to remove any trace of the Army’s passage. You have to remove vehicle tracks and any evidence of damage produced by trying to get into and out of the woods.

Some broken trees, some scuffed up ground… according to reports it did not leave a crater…

According to the principle witnesses, there was a gouge and the object was buried a few feet into the ground. Maybe that is not a true crater but it is something more than a soft landing. Saying it merely "scuffed the ground" is not accurate unless you want to consider your witnesses to be lying about what they saw.

Nobody made a concerted effort in 1965 to interview the residents of Kecksburg, the official denial was accepted and people and the media quickly moved on – leaving the residents to argue among themselves. Stan Gordon states:

“The Kecksburg incident remained a topic for area radio talk shows for years as it does today. As the years passed, I would receive various accounts from sources who claimed knowledge of the event. Many of those involved with the incident even today, wish to remain anonymous. Others have gone public and stand by their accounts. Some have faced personal attacks and ridicule. Many important witnesses have passed away.” (http://www.stangordon.info/kecksburg.htm).

I thought Murphy interviewed all these witnesses. I guess he was sloppy at that as well. These witnesses with a new version of what happened did not start appearing until well over a decade after the event at the prompting of UFO investigators on talk radio. One of the first to come forward, Bitner, has changed his story and originally claimed to be the fire chief, who was in charge. Meanwhile, the principle witnesses to the acorn object (Betters, Romansky, and Bulebush) took over two decades to appear. The first of these was Romansky, who saw a display of the crash (which supposedly had a sketch of the Cosmos 96 spacecraft, which appeared to look like an acorn) put up by Stan Gordon at the local mall. This was the first time he announced he was there and saw the crashed acorn.

The story and the witnesses did not suddenly appear years later, they were there discussing and telling their stories all along.

Feel free to provide evidence that Bulebush, Romansky, and Betters actually were telling their story between 1965 and 1985. Where is the record they came forward right away? The first time they appeared was in the late 1980s.

 

[Astrophotographer]

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

You need to go back into the thread because I am about to repeat myself for the umpteenth time. There is no evidnece that any engineers or scientists were sent to kecksburg. The only record is that a few radar technicians were asked to look into the matter by Bluebook because of the media circus that was evolving at Kecksburg. Quintanilla probably figured he send a few people to be his eyes and ears and see if something did come down there.

The whole thing was sparked by a few people claiming they thought a meteor crashed into the woods but this is common misperception. I suggest you read the sky and telescope article previously linked.

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

Public affairs personnel usually are not the most informed and he was responding to the FOIA request by Kean. The only mention of Kecksburg in any of the NASA files is the Kosmos 96 entry made by Dr. Williams at the prompting of James Easton in 1998.

He speculates in the rest of the statement based on the FOIA request which stated they felt the Fragology files contained Kecksburg information. However, there is no evidence that anything from kecksburg was in them. The summary sheet does not mention Kecksburg.

This has all been discussed previously.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's pretty simple, but I guess I'll have to try to explain it even more simply.

<polite snip>

The rest of your argument is linguistic semantics that don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, because they're predicated on your misunderstanding of Tatum's basic argument.

He wouldn't continue to pretend he misunderstands after that, would he?

 

[ufology]

You need to go back into the thread because I am about to repeat myself for the umpteenth time ... The whole thing was sparked by a few people claiming they thought a meteor crashed into the woods but this is common misperception. I suggest you read the sky and telescope article previously linked.

Public affairs personnel usually are not the most informed and he was responding to the FOIA request by Kean. The only mention of Kecksburg in any of the NASA files is the Kosmos 96 entry made by Dr. Williams at the prompting of James Easton in 1998.

He speculates in the rest of the statement ...

This has all been discussed previously.

I understand about meteors and impacts and so on. I saw a huge fireball back in the 1970s and I've seen hundreds of meteors and meteorites. I can understand how under just the right conditions someone might mistake a meteor for a crash. In this case it seems to have been a mother and two children. The mother called the radio station and that led to the police being alerted. A reporter heard the radio story and went to investigate. The story made the headlines in the local papers and then faded away until it was resurrected by Stan Gordon, followed later by the Sightings series.

So the preumption is that there was no crash of anything, the police cordoned off the area to keep people away from the alledged crash site that didn't exist. The NASA guy just made up stuff because he was on the spot and misinformed, and Stan Gordon the UFO guy was just an opportunistic liar. Does that about sum it up?

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So the preumption is that there was no crash of anything, the police cordoned off the area to keep people away from the alledged crash site that didn't exist. The NASA guy just made up stuff because he was on the spot and misinformed, and Stan Gordon the UFO guy was just an opportunistic liar. Does that about sum it up?

Your first paragraph was more accurate but you seem to imply some things in this second one.

1. The NASA guy did not "make stuff up". He just was not very well informed. There are NO records of Kecksburg by NASA. He apparently was working on information based on the FOIA request, which stated they did have files.

2. The police cordoned off the area because of traffic from bystanders who were showing up in the area. In order to protect the private property of the land owners and to prevent people from interfering with the search (they did, at the time, think there might be something there), they prevented people from getting down into the woods. However, that seemed to be unsuccessful because the flashing light in the woods was caused by a teenager (who has come forward) with a strobe light having some fun.

3. Gordon is an opportunist and has used Kecksburg as a tool to elevate himself in the UFOlogical field. He may be a liar or maybe he just believes so much in this (like a lot of UFO researchers), that he will ignore evidence that indicates a more reasonable explanation. Like the Roswell researchers, he has accepted the stories with very little, if any, verification. This ignores the possibility the witnesses are exaggerating their stories or are just plain lying (need I point out Roswell's Glenn Dennis, Frank Kaufmann, Gerald Anderson, etc for examples of once credible witnesses, who were found out to be liars).

 

[wollery]

Obviously

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

Which directly contradicts several statements you have previously made in this thread, such as it being "incomprehensible" that a scientist would not produce an error analysis and that all scientists have a fixed value of what an acceptable error is.

C&K’s paper is the final report. As such it should contain an assessment of potential measurement error factors. That is simply the nature of peer-reviewed scientific papers and it is extremely unusual that such a paper should be published that does not make such an accounting.

According to your previous statements no peer-review journal would publish a paper without an error analysis, it simply couldn't happen. In fact, according to you, no peer-review journal would publish a paper in which the errors were more than about 10%. Or have you forgotten your unsupported assertions from earlier in the thread?

On the other hand, all we have from White Sands is a summary report – outlining the principle conclusions only. The detailed calculations as to how they arrived at their conclusions we simply don’t have – but we can certainly assume that such would have been contained in their full report.

You can assume all you want, but you have no evidence that they performed such a calculation, and no evidence of what the error might have been if they had. We have a solid example of scientists who should have conducted an error analysis, publishing a paper in a peer-review journal that has no error analysis.

Your previous assertions are shown to be unsupported and can be dismissed as such.

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

So, what you are saying is that it is possible for scientists to fail to conduct an error analysis, and also possible for it to pass peer-review without being questioned. I've also previously shown that peer-review journals will publish data with large errors.

That's all I've ever been saying, and something you denied vigorously, accusing me of maligning the character of those scientists for even daring to suggest the possibility.

I have two simple questions.

1. Is it possible for a scientist to produce a report without an appropriate error analysis? Yes or no.

2. Is it plausible for a scientist to produce a report without an appropriate error analysis? Yes or no.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ET is a plausible explanation because there is nothing in our knowledge of physics or the natural world that would prevent it being the explanation

You've mistaken the word "plausible" where you meant the word "possible". Do you only do this for your favorite explanation?

Why do you have a belief that ET visiting the Earth is plausible? There is no evidence that any ETs have ever visited the Earth. There are enormous distances involved.

Can you honestly go back through this thread and note the places where you have determined that a case positively defies plausible mundane explanation and review them? Honestly, not through your pseudoscience filter and your wish for pseudoaliens to exist filter.

I think if you remove your pseudoscience goggles and look at it objectively, you'll find that your beliefs were only based on your wilful dreaming.

 

[ufology]

Your first paragraph was more accurate but you seem to imply some things in this second one.

1. The NASA guy did not "make stuff up". He just was not very well informed. There are NO records of Kecksburg by NASA. He apparently was working on information based on the FOIA request, which stated they did have files.

2. The police cordoned off the area because of traffic from bystanders who were showing up in the area. In order to protect the private property of the land owners and to prevent people from interfering with the search (they did, at the time, think there might be something there), they prevented people from getting down into the woods. However, that seemed to be unsuccessful because the flashing light in the woods was caused by a teenager (who has come forward) with a strobe light having some fun.

3. Gordon is an opportunist and has used Kecksburg as a tool to elevate himself in the UFOlogical field. He may be a liar or maybe he just believes so much in this (like a lot of UFO researchers), that he will ignore evidence that indicates a more reasonable explanation. Like the Roswell researchers, he has accepted the stories with very little, if any, verification. This ignores the possibility the witnesses are exaggerating their stories or are just plain lying (need I point out Roswell's Glenn Dennis, Frank Kaufmann, Gerald Anderson, etc for examples of once credible witnesses, who were found out to be liars).

OK ... but the actual quote I've got from Keans report on the search for evidence quotes the NASA guy as saying it was a Russian capsule and they did have a file on it and it was boxed up and then lost. It doesn't sound like conjecture based on the supposition that there could have been something. It is quite definitive. The only explanation for that would be that someone else told him to tell that story or he made it up himself. So perhaps he didn't actually lie himself. He could have just been repeating the lie he was told to tell. But why make up a story that confirms your own incompetence? Why not just say there were no boxes of evidence in the first place? That would make more sense.

Then ... regarding the search. Police usually welcome people to assist in searches for downed aircraft, missing people ... whatever. It's only after the crash site is found that they usually cordon off the area to prevent tampering with the scene. So this is a little odd, not really odd, but a little odd.

Then there is the assertion that the UFO investigator just fabricated evidence to propel him into the UFO hall of fame. Are all UFO investigators like this or just the ones who find something to investigate? What evidence do we have that either he was misled by witnesses or that he fabricated his story? Has anyone recanted?

Certainly the absence of physical evidence and government records doesn't help in providing any corroboration for the Kecksburg incident. But that isn't surprising anyway.

The bottom line on Kecksburg for me, and why I let it fade off into my bookshelf someplace a long time ago, is that I don't personally place a lot of importance on the Kecksburg incident. If it was anything at all, it was most likely the Russian capsule. If there wasn't anything at all it was probably the fireball, which in turn was probably a meteor. There wasn't enough in it for me to get piqued that it was a real UFO.

I find the fireball itself more interesting. There are a couple of reports I've read that say it had actually changed direction ... but that could be due to bad reporting because the flight path came from composite reports ... high liklihood of error there. But I haven't really dug into that aspect either. The astronomy people however have, and I don't see any weird trajectory in their reports. Of course they may have eliminated that part of the data as well. Everyone knows meteors don't change direction until they explode ... unless ... that is ... it wasn't a meteor.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

If it was anything at all, it was most likely the Russian capsule. If there wasn't anything at all it was probably the fireball, which in turn was probably a meteor.

So on one hand you're fighting tooth and nail for the witnesses who state it was an acorn shaped alien space craft and the UFOlogists that still to this day promote it as such and on the their hand, you're saying you don't believe the stories of acorn shaped alien space craft... OK.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Then ... regarding the search. Police usually welcome people to assist in searches for downed aircraft, missing people ... whatever. It's only after the crash site is found that they usually cordon off the area to prevent tampering with the scene. So this is a little odd, not really odd, but a little odd.

The problem with that idea is that you just don't want people wandering about on their own in the woods at night. Remember, this was in a "depression" (some could call it a ravine) that contained some deep woods and it was dark. People can get lost or hurt if they are not part of the organized search party. The control aspect probably had that in mind. Another point is they needed to protect private property and prevent people from interfering with the actual search. Volunteers for the search party - yes. People going off on their own - No. The only way to stop the latter is to block access to the search area.

 

[ufology]

The problem with that idea is that you just don't want people wandering about on their own in the woods at night. Remember, this was in a "depression" (some could call it a ravine) that contained some deep woods and it was dark. People can get lost or hurt if they are not part of the organized search party. The control aspect probably had that in mind. Another point is they needed to protect private property and prevent people from interfering with the actual search. Volunteers for the search party - yes. People going off on their own - No. The only way to stop the latter is to block access to the search area.

Sure ... that is reasonable. Maybe they were being picky about who they let in to search. The last thing they needed was more people getting lost in the woods while trying to find somebody.

j.r.

BTW: I empathize on the repetition issue here in the forum and I very much appraciate when someone takes the time to go over the points again. I too find myself repeating things, by retyping or copying and pasting for the benefit of a keeping a response in context.

 

[Rramjet]

I agree with ufology that Kecksburg is not a case that one would die in a ditch defending. Something unusual occurred, but whether anything was found and carted away, as I stated before, I am willing to reserve judgement. One can however argue the details if one side or other puts forward a contention that is not supported by the evidence - and that is precisely what has been happenning over the last few pages. The case definitely has some unusual aspects to it and neither side can really lay claim to have explained all the anaomalies. Unlike many other cases, I doubt that this one will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties now. The eyewitnesses are adamant about what they saw - it is just that two aspects of that cannot be directly supported by evidence - that of a large military presence (we know there was at least a small one) and that of the "acorn" being taken away. As for the rest, well there can be no denying the cordons, the roadblocks, the search, the sightseers, the reporters, the media and extensive official interest. One only has to look at the Blue Book files to see that military people were calling in from all over for information and indeed, even the Pentagon made a call. Strange then that no-one outside Blue Book made a note about the case on a file anywhere in official military circles... NASA for example has all sorts of "lesser" meteor and fireball incidents listed, but one of the best known and most controversial - nada (and they fought a protracted, years long, battle in the courts to avoid even releasing just that fact)... it kind of beggars belief.

Anyway, this case has just about run its course. Perhaps we can move on... Stay tuned!

 

[wollery]

I take it you aren't going to answer my questions then.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I agree with ufology that Kecksburg is not a case that one would die in a ditch defending. Something unusual occurred, but whether anything was found and carted away, as I stated before, I am willing to reserve judgement. One can however argue the details if one side or other puts forward a contention that is not supported by the evidence - and that is precisely what has been happenning over the last few pages. The case definitely has some unusual aspects to it and neither side can really lay claim to have explained all the anaomalies. Unlike many other cases, I doubt that this one will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties now. The eyewitnesses are adamant about what they saw - it is just that two aspects of that cannot be directly supported by evidence - that of a large military presence (we know there was at least a small one) and that of the "acorn" being taken away.

No, you aren't allowed to sneak in false information. There was nothing that fell there so there was nothing to take away.

As for the rest, well there can be no denying the cordons, the roadblocks, the search, the sightseers, the reporters, the media and extensive official interest. One only has to look at the Blue Book files to see that military people were calling in from all over for information and indeed, even the Pentagon made a call. Strange then that no-one outside Blue Book made a note about the case on a file anywhere in official military circles... NASA for example has all sorts of "lesser" meteor and fireball incidents listed, but one of the best known and most controversial - nada (and they fought a protracted, years long, battle in the courts to avoid even releasing just that fact)... it kind of beggars belief.

Anyway, this case has just about run its course. Perhaps we can move on... Stay tuned!

NOW, this case has run its course, Astrophotographer having done some stellar research and with nothing more to see here.


Back to Delphos. Did you deliberately and overtly hide the information that indicated the Johnson boy had attempted other hoaxes or was it your substandard research skills that caused you to not know about them?

 

[ufology]

No, you aren't allowed to sneak in false information. There was nothing that fell there so there was nothing to take away.

We cannot conclude there was nothing there to take away with any more certainty than we can conclude there was something there to take away. To come to any conclusion on this case would not be reasonable given the information and evidence avaialble.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

We cannot conclude there was nothing there to take away with any more certainty than we can conclude there was something there to take away. To come to any conclusion on this case would not be reasonable given the information and evidence avaialble.

j.r.

You really need to read Astrophotographer's posts. They are the ones where Rramjet is getting the greatest gift of all, an education.

Astrophotographer's posts are the ones that you haven't read yet.

 

[Stray Cat]

We cannot conclude there was nothing there to take away with any more certainty than we can conclude there was something there to take away. To come to any conclusion on this case would not be reasonable given the information and evidence avaialble.

If nothing fell there, then there was nothing for anyone to take away (metal acorn or rock from outer space).
As Astrophotographer has given plenty of verifiable evidence contemporary to the time of the event that shows nothing crashed or landed and given comprehensive detail of investigations into the position and course of the fireball which was widely spotted, that shows it was not heading for Kecksburg anyway, doesn't that kind of point more towards the "no metal acorn to take away" theory?

All that there is in favour of a metal acorn is some unverified anecdotes told years after the event, some details of which have been shown to be inaccurate.