The RB-47 UFO Incident

[Lysippos]

I think Tim Printy pretty much nails it.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_1.pdf

[zoser]

I think Tim Printy pretty much nails it.

http://home.comcast..../SUNlite4_1.pdf

What exactly has been nailed? What did the pilots see, what did their state of the art radar detect, and what did the ground radar detect? I think some of you are on a self deception trip.

Edited June 13, 2012 by zoser

[DBunker]

What exactly has been nailed? What did the pilots see, what did their state of the art radar detect, and what did the ground radar detect?

I think some of you are on a self deception trip.

You have no idea how funny that is, comming from you.

[Hazzard]

What exactly has been nailed? What did the pilots see, what did their state of the art radar detect, and what did the ground radar detect? I think some of you are on a self deception trip.

Sorry if I missed it, but where is the pilots accounts of the event, and the radar report?

[TheMcGuffin]

Sorry if I missed it, but where is the pilots accounts of the event, and the radar report?

In the Blue Book files that I cited earlier in the thread.

[Hazzard]

In the Blue Book files that I cited earlier in the thread.

Is there a link to the original report, perhaps?

[psyche101]

I think Tim Printy pretty much nails it.

http://home.comcast..../SUNlite4_1.pdf

I completely agree, I left this very same link back on page 2, but I do not think anyone clicked on it.

[psyche101]

What exactly has been nailed? What did the pilots see, what did their state of the art radar detect, and what did the ground radar detect? I think some of you are on a self deception trip.

DBunker hit the nawil quite squarely on the head, that is indeed somewhat hilarious coming from you.

Click the link and read it. It details errors with regards to placement, speeds and outlines the fault that Phil Klass suggested as a highly probable cause of the readings:

I don’t agree with the malfunction though, because I flew that equipment for 1000 hours in a period of four years and I never saw any sign of a malfunction of this nature, and I never heard any of the hundreds of experienced ravens we had voice any thing which would lead to this conclusion. I do feel strongly that something malfunctioned, but I have no notion of what it could be.

He repeated this objection, in another letter (apparently after receiving a copy of UFOs: Explained):

I certainly agree the equipment malfunctioned some how, but I can’t quite buy the relay you stated was the cause. It seems to me if it malfunctioned that all the signals would be moving wrong, and that since the tail of the aircraft would have reflected the true heading of the aircraft, the ninety degree and 360 degree points would have been changed.

McClure’s concern about the equipment failure seems to ignore the possibility that the relay failure was intermittent. In fact, this type of fault was mentioned by a technician the next day according to McClure:

The day after the incident, when several of them were talking to a technician at Forbes AFB and the technician suggested that a loose lead on the ALA-6 might have caused the sweep around signal in Mississippi, Provenzano asserted that he had seen the same phenomenon on his APD-4 monitor.

It is not clear if the technician found a loose wire and fixed it or suggested a loose wire might be the cause. If he had found the connection loose, he would have simply reattached it correctly and nobody would have ever seen the problem again.

When Klass forwarded his paper on the incident to D.G. Erskine of Bendix, he received the following reply:

One of our engineers here, Jim Watson, read the RB-47 case write up and asked that I convey to you his comments. He was an instructor for the Air Force teaching maintenance on the AN/ALA-6 unit and he said, “Had I been asked what could have caused the 180 degree ambiguity, I would have immediately responded that the most probable cause would have been failure of the K-301 relay

Would it help it Tim put this on Youtube for you?

Summary

While Sparks appears to present a good argument, he did not falsify Klass’ explanation and some of his reasons for dismissing it are incorrect. As a result, we have to consider Klass’ explanation for this part of the flight as plausible and more likely than some “unknown intelligence” that was emitting a CPS-6Blike radar beam towards the RB-47.

Where a prosaic explanation exists, it must take precedence.

[psyche101]

Sorry if I missed it, but where is the pilots accounts of the event, and the radar report?

Here is a more printer friendly version of McG's link (it is a PDF) - LINK

I note Tim Printy mentioned the conclusion which calls this The First Conclusive Scientific Proof for the existence of UFO's yet as Tim rightly points out, science requires repeatability, which means this fails the first test with regards to scientific proof. It shows the incident has been hyped up some.

Edited June 13, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

This may well be worth a read

http://online.lieber...110704773600258

ABSTRACT from above link.

The speed and mass dependence of meteor air plasma temperatures is perhaps the most important data needed to understand how small meteoroids chemically change the ambient atmosphere in their path and enrich the ablated meteoric organic matter with oxygen.

Hi Quillius

Cheer mate, excellent link, shame I do not have a membership there. Now this caught me eye as well. If the meteor is being enriched with oxygen, that could create quite a volatile reaction, which would be dependant on the composition of the meteor. At these speeds, it is conceivable I believe that such a reaction could initiate an incredibly quick change of direction. Imitating "intelligent control" to an observer. A tiny comet might have some very interesting reactions I feel. Something like a space snowball if you will.

Such chemistry can play an important role in creating prebiotic compounds. The excitation conditions in various air plasma emissions were measured from high-resolution optical spectra of Leonid storm meteors during NASA's Leonid Multi-Instrument Aircraft Campaign. This was the first time a sufficient number and range of temperature measurements were obtained to search for meteoroid mass and speed dependencies. We found slight increases in temperature with decreasing altitude, but otherwise nearly constant values for meteoroids with speeds between 35 and 72 km/s and masses between 10^-5 g and 1 g. We conclude that faster and more massive meteoroids produce a larger emission volume, but not a higher air plasma temperature. We speculate that the meteoric plasma may be in multiphase equilibrium with the ambient atmosphere, which could mean lower plasma temperatures in a CO₂-rich early Earth atmosphere.

The last two sentences are quite interesting, although I have yet to look into the PDF contained in link.

Indeed they are, pretty much what I expected as an object descends through our atmosphere with regards to temperatures. I feel that depending on composition of said meteor could determine what altitude the reactions might begin to occur at, thus offering a series of different visual effects at specific heights creating disparity, yet a definite set of circumstances which could be perceived as "the same thing" or perhaps a hundred or so different sets of instances which repeat themselves irregularly, again showing "the same 100 things".

My money is with you D....what odds did we get?

Whoah, take a step back, you guys didn't tell us what the pilots saw! Let me in on it at least!

[DONTEATUS]

Its better than 50/50 !!!

[DONTEATUS]

This may well be worth a read

http://online.lieber...110704773600258

ABSTRACT from above link.

The speed and mass dependence of meteor air plasma temperatures is perhaps the most important data needed to understand how small meteoroids chemically change the ambient atmosphere in their path and enrich the ablated meteoric organic matter with oxygen. Such chemistry can play an important role in creating prebiotic compounds. The excitation conditions in various air plasma emissions were measured from high-resolution optical spectra of Leonid storm meteors during NASA's Leonid Multi-Instrument Aircraft Campaign. This was the first time a sufficient number and range of temperature measurements were obtained to search for meteoroid mass and speed dependencies. We found slight increases in temperature with decreasing altitude, but otherwise nearly constant values for meteoroids with speeds between 35 and 72 km/s and masses between 10^-5 g and 1 g. We conclude that faster and more massive meteoroids produce a larger emission volume, but not a higher air plasma temperature. We speculate that the meteoric plasma may be in multiphase equilibrium with the ambient atmosphere, which could mean lower plasma temperatures in a CO₂-rich early Earth atmosphere.

The last two sentences are quite interesting, although I have yet to look into the PDF contained in link.

My money is with you D....what odds did we get?

50/50 at least ! remember its all in the way one looks at it ! But there is a report about this thats benn kept away from the norm `s ! AFIRM report from that flight !

[quillius]

I completely agree, I left this very same link back on page 2, but I do not think anyone clicked on it.

I have been working my way through it but didnt want a slap dash response/counter......be back soon on this

[Hazzard]

Here is a more printer friendly version of McG's link (it is a PDF) - LINK

I note Tim Printy mentioned the conclusion which calls this The First Conclusive Scientific Proof for the existence of UFO's yet as Tim rightly points out, science requires repeatability, which means this fails the first test with regards to scientific proof. It shows the incident has been hyped up some.

Thanks for the link, psyche,... and you are quite right, this is not the one we all have been waiting for.

[zoser]

DBunker hit the nawil quite squarely on the head, that is indeed somewhat hilarious coming from you.

Click the link and read it. It details errors with regards to placement, speeds and outlines the fault that Phil Klass suggested as a highly probable cause of the readings:

Would it help it Tim put this on Youtube for you?

Where a prosaic explanation exists, it must take precedence.

Looks like you've got this one nailed!

[psyche101]

Looks like you've got this one nailed!

BAM!!!!!

[badeskov]

Looks like you've got this one nailed!

It is pretty much nailed.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMcGuffin]

Thanks for the link, psyche,... and you are quite right, this is not the one we all have been waiting for.

Who ever said that it was? My only opinion on it is that it was never explained at the time, not even by Blue Book and the Air Defense Command, and their job was to explain these things away if possible. If they couldn't do it, then the UFO was truly an unknown, at least if these original records on the case have any value. I can also show that the explanations by Phil Klass were wrong. Klass was incorrect even about the speed and direction of the plane, so his whole argument collapsed right there.

In addition, I know that we don't have all the records on this case, or many others, for that matter.

Edited June 15, 2012 by TheMcGuffin

[TheMcGuffin]

It is pretty much nailed.

Not by anyone who investigated it back in 1957, and they spent months trying to come up with some kind of answer. And of course their orders were to explain as many of these UFO cases as possible, in any way possible, but they were unable to do so.

Strategic Air Command classified this case Top Secret, and took possession of the records and tapes from the flight.

http://www.nicap.org...date_sparks.htm

Edited June 15, 2012 by TheMcGuffin

[TheMcGuffin]

Looks like you've got this one nailed!

What if it was repeated, though, both before and after this time?

We have to remember that the purpose of these flights was to detect radar signals, and that all three operators on the plane detected this unknown signal for a fast-mving airborne object--always on the same frequency. For this reason, it's doubtful that all of them had the same equipment malfunction.

If I were to apply Occam's Razor to this case, I'd say that the simplest explanation that fitted all the (known) facts was that the same object was detected from the air and the ground, in the same position, and that no one at the time was able to identify it.

http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/11/air-force-rb-47-ufo-encounter.html

Brad Sparks has found other incidents of this type of signal-emitting UFO dating back to at least 1955, and there were other RB-47s that encountered such objects. I recall one of these pilots being interviewed about a similar incident durng the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Edited June 15, 2012 by TheMcGuffin

[psyche101]

What if it was repeated, though, both before and after this time?

We have to remember that the purpose of these flights was to detect radar signals, and that all three operators on the plane detected this unknown signal for a fast-mving airborne object--always on the same frequency. For this reason, it's doubtful that all of them had the same equipment malfunction.

If I were to apply Occam's Razor to this case, I'd say that the simplest explanation that fitted all the (known) facts was that the same object was detected from the air and the ground, in the same position, and that no one at the time was able to identify it.

http://naturalplane....-encounter.html

Brad Sparks has found other incidents of this type of signal-emitting UFO dating back to at least 1955, and there were other RB-47s that encountered such objects. I recall one of these pilots being interviewed about a similar incident durng the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Wouldn't repeated incidents of the same nature from the same aircraft indicate a problem with the aircraft? Like the recurring relay problem?

Tim Printy found some pretty big discrepancies in Sparks work on the case. Mostly with regards to Spark dismissing Klass' efforts.

Edited June 15, 2012 by psyche101

[TheMcGuffin]

Even the Condon Committee could not explain this one, although they specifically ruled out meteors and plasma. Like Blue Book, the Condon Committee bent over backwards to explain UFO reports, but it could not do so in this case.

Nor was it able to find any of the records of the incident, either at Blue Book or Air Defense Command.

"2. Could the visual observations have been misinterpreted airplane lights, airplane afterburners, or meteors?

The persistence of the phenomenon rules out meteors. Observed speeds, plus instant re-position and hovering capabilities are not consistent with the aircraft hypothesis.

3. Were the visual observations necessarily of the same phenomenon as the radar observations?

Coincidence of disappearances, appearances, and indicated positions suggest a common cause.

3. If the reported observations are factual and accurate, what capabilities and properties were possessed by the UFO?

a. Rapid motion, hovering, and instant relocation.

b. Emission of electromagnetic radiation in the visible region and possibly in the 2,800 mHz. region.

c. Reflection of radar waves of various frequencies. (From airborne radar units as well as 2,800 mHz. ground units). Failure to transmit at the frequency of the number three radar monitor.

d. Ability to hold a constant position relative to an aircraft.

4. Could the observed phenomenon be explained as a plasma?

Ten scientists who specialize in plasma research, at our October 1967 plasma conference regarded an explanation of this experience in terms of known properties of a plasma as not tenable."

[TheMcGuffin]

Wouldn't repeated incidents of the same nature from the same aircraft indicate a problem with the aircraft? Like the recurring relay problem?

Tim Printy found some pretty big discrepancies in Sparks work on the case. Mostly with regards to Spark dismissing Klass' efforts.

I'd just write off Klass when it comes to many of these cases, since he had the course and speed of the RB-47 wrong, and had airliners flying around far from their actual locations. He was just plain wrong in his basic facts, and not for the first or last time.

In this case, even Blue Book and the Condon Committee ruled out malfunctions because none were ever detected. There's just no proof that these existed, even according to the Air Force records from the time. Some people later speculated that they must have existed, but I know of no proof in the records that they did.

And that wouldn't explain how ground radar detected the UFO in the same place that the RB-47 did. In that instance, Occam's Razor would lead me to conclude that they had both zeroed in on the same object, unless the ground radar and all the detection equipment on the plane were malfunctioing at the exact same time.

For that matter, the crews on the plane and the ground would have to have been malfunctioning pretty badly, too, but there's no evidence that they were.

Add to that the visual sightings in the same places as ground rdar and the RB-47 detection equipment then it seems improbably that it was a mirage, meteor or plasma.

Edited June 15, 2012 by TheMcGuffin

[psyche101]

Even the Condon Committee could not explain this one, although they specifically ruled out meteors and plasma. Like Blue Book, the Condon Committee bent over backwards to explain UFO reports, but it could not do so in this case.

Nor was it able to find any of the records of the incident, either at Blue Book or Air Defense Command.

"2. Could the visual observations have been misinterpreted airplane lights, airplane afterburners, or meteors?

The persistence of the phenomenon rules out meteors. Observed speeds, plus instant re-position and hovering capabilities are not consistent with the aircraft hypothesis.

3. Were the visual observations necessarily of the same phenomenon as the radar observations?

Coincidence of disappearances, appearances, and indicated positions suggest a common cause.

3. If the reported observations are factual and accurate, what capabilities and properties were possessed by the UFO?

a. Rapid motion, hovering, and instant relocation.

b. Emission of electromagnetic radiation in the visible region and possibly in the 2,800 mHz. region.

c. Reflection of radar waves of various frequencies. (From airborne radar units as well as 2,800 mHz. ground units). Failure to transmit at the frequency of the number three radar monitor.

d. Ability to hold a constant position relative to an aircraft.

4. Could the observed phenomenon be explained as a plasma?

Ten scientists who specialize in plasma research, at our October 1967 plasma conference regarded an explanation of this experience in terms of known properties of a plasma as not tenable."

Hey McG

I was born in '67! Mate, that is an awful long time ago, and after Klass was bullied out of plasma research. Admittedly he made it easy by overstating his plasma conclusion, yet all the same, we know a great deal more all these years later, and if todays technology was applied, the odds are high that a different outcome would be received from "plasma professionals". All other symptoms, like disappearing and reappearing, unnaturally fast turns and the emission of radiation sound very much like natural phenomena.

I think if many cases were put before a scientist today that these outcomes would be quite different, and I think the number of such magnificent recollections in the 50's and 60's as opposed to today indicates this.

I just do not think a 1967 opinion is something I would take to the bank where science is concerned.

[TheMcGuffin]

Hey McG

I was born in '67! Mate, that is an awful long time ago, and after Klass was bullied out of plasma research. Admittedly he made it easy by overstating his plasma conclusion, yet all the same, we know a great deal more all these years later, and if todays technology was applied, the odds are high that a different outcome would be received from "plasma professionals". All other symptoms, like disappearing and reappearing, unnaturally fast turns and the emission of radiation sound very much like natural phenomena.

I think if many cases were put before a scientist today that these outcomes would be quite different, and I think the number of such magnificent recollections in the 50's and 60's as opposed to today indicates this.

I just do not think a 1967 opinion is something I would take to the bank where science is concerned.

I can't claim to be an expert on them, and I don't know of any such plasma experts who have even looked at this case since the Condon Committee. This would have been a very long duration plasma or fireball, though, with highly unusual properties.