Sheaffer and associates nuke the 'Jimmy Carter UFO' myth

See badufos.blogspot.com...

It's not just the evidence on one specific event, which is pretty iron-clad.

The bigger question, more important to modern 'UFO studies', is this:

In the whole world, for decades, how did EVERY ufologist, UFO author, and mass media huckster flub [and cynically exploit] this famous tissue-paper case so badly?

a reply to: JimOberg

a barium cloud launched from Eglin AFB (Rocket Number AG7.626) and released on January 6, 1969 at 7:35 pm EST

This almost perfectly matches the known position of Venus,

Some of the light refracting from Venus may also have lit up the barium cloud, making it seem all the more eerie

originally posted by: JimOberg
See badufos.blogspot.com...

It's not just the evidence on one specific event, which is pretty iron-clad.

The bigger question, more important to modern 'UFO studies', is this:

In the whole world, for decades, how did EVERY ufologist, UFO author, and mass media huckster flub [and cynically exploit] this famous tissue-paper case so badly?

It's amazing it took so long to solve the cause, but I think most UFO researchers are less interested in solutions, and more interested in perpetuating mysteries. Why? Because once it's solved, it's over, there's not much more to talk about. But if it's still a mystery, it can be the subject of more books and lecture circuits as long as it remains unsolved.

originally posted by: ShadowChatter
Some of the light refracting from Venus may also have lit up the barium cloud, making it seem all the more eerie

Not much contribution compared to the sun I would think, compare their magnitudes.

The apparent magnitude of the Sun is −26.74
The maximum apparent magnitude of Venus is -4.92
Difference in magnitude = at least 21.8, probably more since Venus is usually less bright than that maximum.

Thus the sun is 10^(0.4x21.8)= 525 million times brighter than Venus at its maximum brightness.
So I would think a brightness contribution of 1/525 million would not be very noticeable.

The linked article says Venus was at 25 degrees, not far off from Carter's 30 degree estimate, and that the barium cloud was at 33 degrees, also not far off from Carter's 30 degree estimate. But the question I have is if the barium cloud was 8 degrees higher than Venus, shouldn't Carter have seen both Venus at 25 degrees, and the Barium cloud at 33 degrees, so he would be able to say the UFO was 8 or 10 degrees approximately above Venus? If he had reported that then we might not have been stuck with the Venus explanation for so long. However Carter's report left much to be desired with the date being so far off. If you're going to report a UFO, it's best to do it ASAP while you can still remember the correct date, time, and other details.

UFOs are like ghosts or Bigfoot etc.

You have to see it to know.

Otherwise it's all assumptions based on accounts and "evidence" that can be faked or twisted.

a reply to: JimOberg

In the whole world, for decades, how did EVERY ufologist, UFO author, and mass media huckster flub [and cynically exploit] this famous tissue-paper case so badly?

I think to combat the prevailing sneering attitude of people who think "only kooks see UFOs". UFO proponents probably bring up the fact that even presidents like Reagan and Carter have seen UFOs to show how widespread the phenomenon is and to combat this stigma. After all, the fact that only a very small percentage of UFO sightings are reported hurts our chances of finding out what they really are, and such stigma contributes to that.

In any case, I think you're exaggerating here. I for one never found the case very interesting, and I'd never even heard the details of it. I've never even heard anyone mention any details besides "Jimmy Carter saw a UFO." I've never heard it propped up as some monster case pointing towards the ETH.

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: JimOberg
....
In any case, I think you're exaggerating here. I for one never found the case very interesting, and I'd never even heard the details of it. I've never even heard anyone mention any details besides "Jimmy Carter saw a UFO." I've never heard it propped up as some monster case pointing towards the ETH.

Fair enough.

But that reasonable response reminds me of what I consistently hear after doing in-depth investigation of major media-hyped stories, like the Norway spiral of 2009 or the Apollo-11 'UFOs parked on crater rim' or the great 'Soviet crescent UFO wave' of 1967, which is 'you picked an easy one' and 'why do you concentrate on the low-hanging fruit?'. [grin]

Watch the skies. It's by no means 'all nonsense.

a reply to: JimOberg

Yes that is a fair point, and I would not be one to say those things. I think we should seriously investigate UFO sightings and make every effort to solve them.

Just so long as we're genuinely searching for truth, even if the truth doesn't turn out to be something mundane.

Someone should interview Carter and ask him what he thinks about the Venus theory

Then maybe it could be settled ?

originally posted by: easynow
Someone should interview Carter and ask him what he thinks about the Venus theory

Then maybe it could be settled ?

Venus is not "about the size of the moon", so I don't think it's necessary to ask him given that description Carter provided.

archive.org...

“It was the darndest thing I’ve ever seen,” he told reporters. “It was big, it was very bright, it changed colors and it was about the size of the moon. We watched it for ten minutes, but none of us could figure out what it was..."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

so I don't think it's necessary to ask him given that description Carter provided

Sorry but Not wanting to discuss the subjects with the actual witness is ... illogical

If the witness is shown the data and agrees he saw an illuminated "cloud" , then the explanation would probably be accepted by the UFO community

Anything less will be seen as debunker trickery

originally posted by: easynow
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Sorry but Not wanting to discuss the subjects with the actual witness is ... illogical

I didn't say not to discuss it with him, I said asking him if it was Venus isn't a good question to ask because his description already provided rules that out.

If the witness is shown the data and agrees he saw an illuminated "cloud" , then the explanation would probably be accepted by the UFO community

Anything less will be seen as debunker trickery

His description is already pretty consistent with the cloud, since he said he didn't think it was a solid object, but sure I have no objection to asking him what he thinks of the barium cloud explanation. I just thought it was a dumb idea to ask him if he thought the thing he said was the size of the moon was Venus.

Jimmy Carter UFO incident

In 1973 Carter said (Sheaffer 1998:20–21)

There were about twenty of us standing outside of a little restaurant, I believe, a high school lunch room, and a kind of green light appeared in the western sky. This was right after sundown. It got brighter and brighter. And then it eventually disappeared. It didn't have any solid substance to it, it was just a very peculiar-looking light. None of us could understand what it was.

Saying "It didn't have any solid substance to it" sounds like a very good match for a cloud, don't you think?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think there's a difference between people who genuinely see something they can't explain and want to attach their preferred explanation to it, and deliberate frauds who want to make money from those people by exaggerating, misinterpreting, obfuscating and manipulating their accounts.

yes....till ya see one...it's up in the air....no, I mean it's a toss up...

I think all the visual phenomenom are interdimensional

reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
yes....till ya see one...it's up in the air....no, I mean it's a toss up...

I think all the visual phenomenom are interdimensional

Like these?

www.debunker.com...

Note at end, Carter agrees the rocket explanation "could be accurate".