471 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

Then we have the crash of the "missile" somewhere in Mexico, except that no one at White Sands could ever identify it as one of theirs.  This was strictly an Army show, however, and the commander of Ft. Bliss Texas was involved, as was Ft. Sam Houston, then as now the Army's leading facility for training medics.  

I've been there myself.  It was always one of the favored assignments in the Army, while Ft. Bliss definitely was not.

Anyway, the Army was in charge of dealing with all these crashed "missiles" and "meteors" or whatever they were, and as I have said before, when it comes to UFOs people have been barking up the wrong trees for many years.


"As stated previously in this report, the recovery of some type of other-worldly device would have been handled, most likely, by a group like the Joint Research Development Board (JRDB). What a strange coincidence that the date of the publication of both Dr. Zohn’s sighting of a missile of the likes he had never “studied” before, at White Sands, and the reported recovery of the Roswell device, near Corona, were both July the 8th, 1947, the very date in which the JRDB assigned the Army committee in question, with Fort Bliss at the Helm, over-seeing the range, in New Mexico.

As late as October 24th, murmurings about the incident continued, hinting at a much deeper interest in the case, proving that something was indeed going on, and different components of the military wanted to be kept appraised of the situation. For instance, the document of the 24th reads, “…Subject: Crash of Unidentified Flaming Object To: Commanding General, Air Material Command Wright Field, Dayton Ohio Attention: TSNLI 1. Reference is made to your message TSNAD-10-2, 14 October 1947, and TSNAD-10-3, 17 October 1947, and letter, this headquarters, dated 20 October 1947, subject as above. 2. Forwarded herewith is a copy of message from Commanding General Fourth Army, containing additional information on the subject “

The references to the two TSNADs are to the early memos, in which General Homer, Commander of Fort Bliss, Texas, reported that the early reports from the Mexican garrison were that it was an errant V-2 rocket, but that General Homer, was still surveying, and would update. No other updates appear, but one of the requests for information came from Fort Sam Houston, which is the premier military medical base in the entire nation."


http://www.google.co...IZ3unqKYhMSM_eA

Remember my helpful hint, when it's on the ground it's an Army problem, whether they want it or not.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

These "meteors" had been troubling the military long before the Green Fireballs and Project Twinkle, especially with Dr. LaPaz always saying they wren't meteors at all, and the missile experts saying that they weren't missiles.  

according to the twining memo...




but natural phenomenon is not restricted to meteors only... keyword: "possibility"

[TheMacGuffin]

"All of the memos that were available for me to read at the Project Blue Book Archives, dealing with this incident, concluded that it was a fiery missile, or meteor, approximately one meter long, and which brandished a blue, fiery tail. It crashed in Mexico, just West of Fabens, Texas, very close to a village known as Cassetta Reforma. Fears were raised that it could entangle the U.S. into sovereignty issues. Since it was initially deemed to be a meteor, based on evaluations by General Homer, it was left as such, and dropped, according to what is available in the files.

White Sands and Fort Bliss’s histories are important to all this, and it seems reasonable to quote a little more from the official history of the Proving Ground, i.e., The History of Cape Canaveral, Chapter 2:

“The Air Force was notified by the recently established Department of Defense on *December 30, 1947* that since a long range missile proving ground was intended to benefit the Army, Navy and Air Force, management of the project would be reassigned…The project was officially designated the Joint Long Range Proving Ground, with development responsibility granted to the Joint Long Range Proving Ground Group[Bobnote: Army controlled]. Although plans continued initially for the establishment of a missile range based in California, political problems arose in 1948. Although it would have been a suitable site very close to existing missile manufacturers, the California site had to be rejected when Mexican President Aleman refused to agree to allow missiles to fly over the Baja region. This was largely a result of bad timing, since a wayward V-2 rocket launched from White Sands, New Mexico had recently crashed near Juarez, Mexico.”


Two things stand out to me:

1. It was proven early on, with documentation provided by the
American military, that the incident was not due to an an errant V-2 rocket

2. If it truly had been a meteor, the question is respectfully made as to the details of the meteor itself. Where are the official samples from
“the fall”, and the stories about the meteorologists who went there,and who now study them?

[* December 30, 1947, same date given as the official designation of SIGN as a special project to investigate the “flying discs”]"


http://www.google.co...IZ3unqKYhMSM_eA

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

Yeah...fatal if you think that meteors don’t usually alter their courses only to zip off in another direction, as this object reportedly did.

plasmas do...

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 01 December 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

according to the twining memo...

but natural phenomenon is not restricted to meteors only... keyword: "possibility"

But Gen. Twining never thought that the UFOs were really meteors, not in 1947, and not later when he was head of the Air Force and finally the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 01 December 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

plasmas do...

Oh yes, the latest catch-all explanation for every UFO report that cannot otherwise be explained.  I tend to think of it as the bottom of the barrel--the last resort if all else fails.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

Oh yes, the latest catch-all explanation for every UFO report that cannot otherwise be explained.  I tend to think of it as the bottom of the barrel--the last resort if all else fails.

http://en.wikipedia....ctive_reasoning

[TheMacGuffin]

F-86 Shooting Incident / 700 MPH Target
Sept. 1952
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Fran Ridge:
Sept. 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico
Afternoon. Radar detected a 700 m.p.h. target near Kirtland AFB which slowed to 100 m.p.h.. Two F-86's were scrambled. One fired on the UFO. Report ordered destroyed. If Captain Edward J. Ruppelt hadn't written about it in his book we would never have heard about this case. It never made it to Blue Book.

In January of 1998 I received a large collection of notes by Ruppelt that his wife had turned over to the Center for UFO Studies in Chicago. These were actually provided to me by Robert Swiatek of the Fund for UFO Research. They included interesting information regarding this case. In June of 2002 our Nuclear Connection Project team made a startling discovery. A few years before we had found that there were193 incidents where UFOs and nuclear energy or weapons sites were common factors. Kirtland had figured in on two of them (1957 & 1980). We then realized any major sighting over Kirtland would also have a NC and this incident was added to the list.

Lt. Glen Parrish was the Intelligence Officer at the 34th Air Defense Division at Albuquerque where Col. Matheny was the CO. Ruppelt: "Parrish sent in some of the best reports that we had and he is the man who showed me the report on the pilot who shot at the UFO." (Sept. 1952) According to Ruppelt, with all of the good reports that Parrish had submitted, he wasn't a confirmed believer. But he did think that the reports were important enough to warrant careful investigations. In addition to the above, Parrish was the middle man for the reports from the people who were doing the radiation work in Los Alamos. The date of the encounter was discovered by Brad Sparks to have been sometime in September of that year. Dan Wilson recently posted some BB docs that show incidents in September, but have them listed as explained as "balloon".

Joel Carpenter:
In the spring of 1952 there was proposal by Col Methaney (I believe that's the spelling) of Kirtland's Air Defense Command 34th Air Defense Division - to modify Lockheed F-94C Starfire interceptors with cameras to get closeup photos of UFOs. They were to be put on 24/7 alert (POUNCE). I would think Kirtland would have been the logical place.

http://www.google.co...sdNMqBdMN0aWxEA

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 01 December 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ctive_reasoning

You always make it sound like you are imparting some kind of new information to me with these annoying Wiki articles, as if I'd never heard of any of it before.  LOL

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

You always make it sound like you are imparting some kind of new information to me with these annoying Wiki articles, as if I'd never heard of any of it before.  LOL

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 01 December 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

You also make it sound like I never heard of Project Condign before or that I do not know about its controversial conclusions.


http://www.uk-ufo.or...gn/condcmnt.htm

[TheMacGuffin]

This is what Isaac Koi had to say about Project Condign at its UAP-plamsa theory.


"As detailed below, I consider the Condign Report to be a very
useful and valuable document. The report is valuable as a case
study of the risks inherent in scientific research being
conducted in secrecy, including the risks of inefficiency and
ineffectiveness.

The Condign Report appears to have been compiled by a single
individual:

(a) without involving any consultation with scientists in the
relevant fields, and

(without involving any consultation with ufologists to
determine what previous consideration of the relevant theories
had occurred (including to discover if any reasons had been
advanced for rejecting the relevant theory or whether there was
any data inconsistent with it).

These factors are at the core of the most significant problems
with this severely flawed report.

In short, the Condign Report reinvents the wheel. The theory
that UFO sightings are caused by plasma has been considered
previously by various ufologists, scientists and engineers. The
Condign Report advances this theory without reference to much of
that previous consideration (or apparent awareness of the
relevant material), or any reference to the various arguments
opposing that theory.

The severe flaws in the Condign Report highlighted below do
_not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any other theory) is
necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not mean that the
claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth are true.
Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a bad name."


http://www.ufoeviden...nts/doc2024.htm

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 01 December 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

You also make it sound like I never heard of

and you think nobody has heard about all these black and white bits from the 40 n 50's you keep alluding to?

[TheMacGuffin]

There are numerous flaws with this Condign Report, although there is hardly enough space to mention them all here.

http://www.ufoeviden...nts/doc2024.htm

"On an initial reading of the report, I was puzzled why the
author had bothered to perform (or include in his report) such
detailed statistical analysis of such poor data. It occurred to
me that the author was simply unaware of the old computing
adage, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" ("GIGO"). However, my initial
thought was unfair to the author. He actually includes in the
body of the report the following statement: "It is emphasized
however that those conclusions drawn can only be as good as the
reported data" (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 3, para 2). Given the
numerous complaints in the report about the inadequacies in the
"reported data", I am left puzzled why the author bothered with
such detailed statistical analysis (other than feeling that the
Terms of Reference required him to perform such an exercise,
regardless of his own views).

In any event, that statistical analysis does not in fact appear
provide a basis for most of the conclusions of the report. Upon
a preliminary examination of the Condign Report, it appears to
me that about the only statement made in the executive summary
as a result of the compilation and analysis of the database is
that there is an increased incidence of UFO reports during
periods of peak meteor activity.

Given that the Condign Report's content, in accordance with the
relevant Terms Of Reference ("TOR"), largely relate to the
statistical analysis performed, one might have expected the
plasma-UFO theory advanced in the report to be supported by the
statistical analysis. With this in mind, readers may wish to pay
particular attention to the page of the report which actually
deals with an attempt to find a correlation between UAP reports
and weather conditions (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 21, para 50).
The relevant page stresses the fact that an attempt was made to
analyze "the most obvious factor - that of the potential of
enhanced electrical conditions in the atmosphere". However, the
results of the consideration of several samples were mixed, with
the overall conclusion being drawn that "there are many
occasions when UAP reports are received when there is no
recorded thunder conditions and hence no enhanced electrical
activity in the form of lightning. On those occasions (other
man-made objects excepted) UAP must be caused by something
else".

It seems almost too minor a matter to note that the results of
the statistical analysis in relation to weather are in fact
misrepresented in the conclusions section a few pages later on.
The conclusions section states "Positive (+0.62) correlation was
shown between thunder (lightning present) and the presence of
UAP reports" [Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 31]. In fact, as noted
above, the relevant page of the analysis dealt with three
samples with mixed results. The first sample (1988 reports) has
a correlation of -0.43 (i.e. a negative correlation, i.e. UAP
are _less_ likely to be reported when there is a high incidence
of lightning), the second sample (1996 reports) has a positive
correlation of 0.62, and the third sample (1988 reports) had a
correlation of 0.19. It is not clear whether the correlation in
relation to the third sample was positive or negative, since the
relevant description of the results refers to a "weakly
positive" correlation but this appears to be a correlation
between days of thunder against days when _no_ UAP reports were
received (i.e. a negative correlation between UAP reports and
lightning). Thus, the conclusion section's reference to a
"positive (+0.62) correlation) merely refers to the one sample
out of the three which most supports the theory being advanced.
The other two samples (and the significant disparity in the
results) are simply ignored in the conclusions section.

Instead of advancing a theory that plasmas caused by weather
conditions are misreported as UFOs (as suggested by some reports
in the media), the thrust of the material relating to
statistical analysis is in fact that meteors are the most
significant cause of plasmas which result in UAP reports.

The reasoning in support of this contention is probably the most
amusing part of the report.

The report does not contain any references to data in support of
the suggestion that plasma bodies are generated by meteors.
Instead, the report refers to the large quantity of matter
entering the earth's atmosphere which "in theory is said to burn
up". The report then simply says that certain issues arise "if
it is postulated that" not all this material burns up or impacts
the surface. (The report acknowledges that there is "a dearth of
information in the scientific press on this possibility").

The report then makes the further imaginative leap that the
postulated further material turns into "meteor plasmas". The
report notes a finding (which may not be considered very
surprising) that "peak reporting periods co-incided with meteor
show peaks", but contends that the reports did not involve (as
one might have expected) sightings of "falling meteors" but were
in fact sightings of "meteor plasmas". The report simply asserts
that these sightings "were clearly events which occurred after
the plasmas had been formed, were usually at low altitude and
exhibited the regularly-seen erratic, bobbing, hovering and
climbing motion which would not [sic] be mistaken by the public
and other credible witnesses" [Volume 1, Chapter 3, paras 53-65
(particularly at paras 54-55 and 65)]."

mcrom901, on 01 December 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

and you think nobody has heard about all these black and white bits from the 40 n 50's you keep alluding to?

I suspect that many people have not, although I have no way of knowing if you have.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

This is what Isaac Koi had to say about Project Condign at its UAP-plamsa theory.


"The severe flaws in the Condign Report highlighted below do
_not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any other theory) is
necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not mean that the
claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth are true.
Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a bad name."

can you point out these 'severe flaws'?

http://www.abovetops...hread416758/pg1