reply to post by HolgerTheDane
I do not know what your problem is, I have seen you aggressively trying to debunk other UFO threads so I guess it is expected. There is no need for
your scoffing, ridicule, and bashing of my thread. I have welcomed you and everyone to CIVILY discuss these matters, preferably with an open mind that
isn't already made up one way or the other. I have politely answered your questions and everything is covered in my OP. I never forced anyone to
believe anything, nor did I say the objects were for sure alien spacecraft. I gave my opinion
, but as far as official conclusions go I said
what I always do; "It is up to you the reader to decide what these objects were"
. I never once called the objects "craft" or
"spaceships", so obviously you either did not read the OP or are using pseudoskeptical fallacies and disinformation in an attempt to debunk the
case. I was not leading anything or inflating anything, the average speed came from the USAF and Navy reports themselves, it is not something I made
up. Actually the speed of the objects had to be over way above a birds speed unless the objects were filmed from a few hundred feet up, which is
obviously not the case, there isn't any refuting that these objects, whatever they were, were at least over 1,000 feet high and more than a mile
away, you can tell that at least just by watching the film. Newhouse was also a seasoned Naval Film Officer, so he was pretty good at judging
distances. You stating that my intent was to lead people that the objects were alien craft because I said the mean speed was 665 mph is ignorant,
ambiguous, and erroneous-and quite frankly rather obnoxious. It seems to me that you either A), do not know how to properly discuss cases in a civil
manner, or B), do not like what the facts of the case point to so you are mad at me for presenting them and thus trying to attack them. I really do
not care which it is, or if it's any, that is just a quick observation. The facts are what they are, and actually that estimate was a more
conservative one than it could have been. Regardless of what you say about "they didn't test this", "they didn't do that", "the technology was
poor at the time", the fact is they did do many tests and utilized many top institutions and man hours.
It is so easy to now, after the fact
ridicule the tests right? Yes I understand there was no reference point and thus there was no clear way to tell how far the objects were, BUT even
without that the estimates on speed, accel/decel/ velocity, luminosity, etc could still be made. As usual with most skeptics(mainly pseudoskeptics)
however you are completely disregarding Newhouse's, a 21 year Navy film vet, eyewitness testimony on what he, his wife, and two children saw. You
seem to maintain that he was wrong, and that there is no way the objects were at 10,000 feet (simply because apparently you just think it can not be,
likely because you know what that means if they were at around 10,000 feet) when what you maintain is true is in direct contradiction to the evidence
(like the CIA ran Robertson Panel).
This film could not be duplicated under simulated conditions.
The objects appear to be a light source rather than reflected light.
All the objects appear to be the same size and circular in shape.
At a distance of five miles, with the movement perpendicular to the line of sight, the average velocity is 653.5 mph. Likewise, at 2.5 miles the
average speed is 326.75 mph.
The movement in flight appears to follow an elliptical or circular pattern, within the group.
While the objects are unidentified, the following possibilities have been eliminated:
The image structure & maneuvers eliminates any type of aircraft.
Microscopic examinations show that the objects are in focus and 1/6th to 1/10 the size of the full moon with the naked eye.
Photogrammetric experiments have shown that the images cannot be associated with any type of bird observation at any distance.
They were NOT birds in any likelihood....
Because the analysts noted the complete absence of any evidence to indicate birds, such as fluttering, birds were the first and easiest discarded
explanation. There was almost a complete consensus that birds could not be the explanation; it was so untenable that the analysis concentrated on
reasonable other possible causes such as balloon or aircraft.
It was the opinion of the P.I.L. representatives that the objects sighted were not birds, balloons or aircraft, were "not reflections because there
was no blinking while passing through 60 degrees of arc" and were, therefore, "self-luminous." Plots of motion and variation in light intensity of
the objects were displayed.
It should be emphasized that neither of the two analysis remotely
Can you say it out loud - ASSUMPTION.
LOL, that is funny because you are the only one making assumptions without proper research. Aside from that your snide remark was extremely
immature and troll-like.
Why not from other fields? Ornothology comes to mind.
You must not do much research or reading of the original article before trying to debunk well researched and presented threads. Actually an
consulted and did not think the objects were birds, although the possibility could not be ruled out. Again, the Panel that
you are talking about was the one that "debunked" the film, so maybe you should ask them why they didn't have one but the USAF did consult one. And
no I am not going to dig back through the multitudes of Blue Book files to find it for you, you can do that yourself.
This is important. If they were self luminous please explain - why the variatio?
LOL, again apparently you did not bother to read my OP or any of the links provided. The changes could have occurred by the movement through arc of
the objects, the size was thought to change because of the quick velocity of the unknown objects, which would drop altitude rapidly and then ascend
rapidly, which was past what birds can do, thus the reason for the speed estimates you like to bash and say do not hold up. Well actually they do and
that proves that the objects were traveling at high speeds
The effect is also because (in the majority opinion of the USAF) the objects were
that were moving.
Soo much more likely isn't it? If we decide from the start that we are looking for alien craft.
That couldn't be further from the truth, and you have showed once again that either you did not read the OP (likely) or for whatever reason you did
not comprehend what you read in a clear manner. I didn't say that, the USAF and Navy said that after running tests, and I HIGHLY DOUBT THEY WERE
TRYING TO LEAD THE PUBLIC INTO BELEIVING NEWHOUSE SAW A FLEET OF ALIEN SPACECRAFT!
So maybe you didn't realize that whole passage of information
was an image of an official USAF document courtesy of bluebookarchives.org
and not something I made up to
exaggerate and mislead the people of this community and the world.
As I claimed in my post with the keyframing. THEY DID NOT KEYFRAME.
They plotted on a pice of glass. This method cannot enable you to view the film again with all the movements seen together live. Keyframing - or
better still motion tracking - will let you see the actual movements and then one can recognize natural patterns as in soaring birds.
Well as I stated in my OP, it is impossible to run new tests because the Pentagon will not release the original film, and even if they did it is
probably so degraded that it would be impossible to run new tests. The USAF and private researchers were willing to run more tests on the film,
especially another densitometer test (after Dr. Donald Menzel said he thought the first densitometer was done wrong) but the Pentagon would not
release the film and the Robertson Panel did not want to run any more tests on the film, even though they were the ones who stated a new one needed to
be done. So obviously they knew it would not make a difference or they did not care anyways since it is publically known their only goal was to debunk
the UFO phenomena and disregard any legitimate evidence.
How come this wasn't mentioned in the synopsis?
Is it possible that it didn't fit the purpose of the exersize?
Because the synopsis is just an introduction, why would I go into the entirety of the thread in detail in it? You are pulling irrelevant stuff out to
try and give yourself credence and debunk and bash my thread, I do not know if it is personal or what. Exercise? What is the purpose of your
professional looking debunking attempt and ridicule and scoffing?????
I only try to present evidence in the most neutral manner and you accuse me
of pushing a falsely presented case on people? Is it possible that there is no debunking to be done on this thread because everything was covered, so
you must resort to scoffing and ridicule in a feeble attempt to debunk a solid case?
Another thing, since you liked to quote that, which obviously biasedly strengthened you point, why didn't you quote the weather documentation from
any of my sources that stated there were likely no thermals that day??
Continued Next Page....
[edit on 6/28/2009 by jkrog08]