 |
| Stan Gordo |
Stan
Gordon was the guest on this week’s program. Stan has been investigating the
Kecksburg UFO case almost from the moment the reports of an object in the woods
were made. He has interviewed dozens of people who say they saw the object in
the air and on the ground. We talk about this and about the theory that it was
a mistaken fireball or that it was a reentry vehicle. You can listen to the
interview here:
The
conversation wasn’t only about the Kecksburg UFO crash but also moved into the
realm of cryptozoology and a discussion of Bigfoot. Stan mentioned that he had
investigated many sightings and even provided some information about the latest
of those sightings. You can learn more at Stan’s website: www.stangordon.info/
Next
week’s guest: Don Ledger
Topic:
Shag Harbour
.jpg)
5 comments:
I really like Stan, he was one of the first researchers I found who was seeking truth. Now I like him even more, I agree that there is a possibility that some of paranormal activity is related to dimensional shifts. Maybe it explains other things like ghosts.
It would be great if all the paranormal researchers would compare notes and see if we get closer to the truth. Of course that would bring a lot more fraudulent investigators and malicious debunkers into the picture. There is nothing wrong with a skeptical viewpoint but too many who claim to be skeptics are starting with a lie. I laugh when they mention science, they have no idea what science is.
In my opinion frauds and malicious debunkers are equally responsible for causing people to back away from the subject of the paranormal. They sit in the same boat but row in different directions, you can't get anywhere doing that.
@Neal,
Debunkers try to move people away from -any- subject that doesn't agree with 'science' as they define it. They don't allow that science exists to explain the unexplainable. They don't allow that there are often many ways to explain a particular phenomenon. They are reluctant to allow that a phenomenon is, at present, unexplainable.
I don't think that theories like dimensional shifts should be used to give credence to paranormal phenomena, nor do I think that such theories be used to support the UFO phenomenon. This, in spite of the fact that the UFO phenomenon may be totally non-physical in nature.
Science today is a bureaucratized, institutionalzed, system. It's like a religion or cult. To join, one has to be indoctrinated by the priest class in educational institutions, which are overseen by the priest class. The information is strictly controlled. Acceptable research avenues are established, all others are rejected. This is accomplished by a peer(priest)-review system, which is why there are so many BS 'research' papers published. No one is allowed to rock the boat. The only possible saving grace is the admission of the social 'sciences' into the system (think chiropractors vs. MDs).
Inviting the paranormal into UFO discussions will always be fruitless, because only true believers will accept using one unexplainable phenomenon to explain another.
----------
P.S. There -is- a way to explain paranormal phenomena with negative energy physics; a discussion for another day.
. .. . .. --- ....
(part 1 of 2)
When Kevin interviewed Stan Gordon, he brought up an article published in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (JRASC), that discussed the fireball seen by thousands from Michigan, Ohio, New York, Ontario, etc. that occurred just minutes before witnesses in Kecksburg said something came down in the woods.
Just to correct one small mistake, Kevin thought the article discussed debris recovered from the fireball. It did not (in fact, denied any debris being recovered to date).
However, debris was mentioned in newspaper articles of the day, including flaming debris raining down on Elyria, Ohio and starting numerous grass fires that the fire dept. had to deal with. When I checked the Elyria newspaper, the front page showed 3 boys who had recovered me metallic debris that was to be analyzed by a local university chemist. When I called one of the grown boys, he told me the fireball came directly overhead and the fragments were still warm when they picked them up. As to what finally happened to the debris, he said three white cars with NASA logos arrived and confiscated the debris. There is a NASA facility only 20 miles away in Cleveland.
Stan mentioned that I had some criticisms of the JRASC article. Indeed I do and will mention a few here. The main thrust of the article was a calculation of fireball trajectory using two sets of closely spaced photos of the fireball smoke trail taken near Detroit, MI. The problem here is that because of the close spacing of the photographers, even very small errors in measured angular directions results in very large triangulation errors in the trajectory. The JRASC article claimed absolute perfection in measurement with no errors which is totally impossible and unscientific. With this they claimed the trajectory was at right angles to one that would have taken the fireball towards Kecksburg and diving steeply into the ground. In other words, traveling sideways to the photographers, not away from from them.
My main objection to the article was the lack of any standard error analysis and the assumption of zero error. This is vital in any quantitative science paper because whether results are valid or not depends on inherent errors in measurement that need to be taken into account. There is no such thing as zero error. I found that an error of only a little more than 1/2 degree in measurement was sufficient to swing the trajectory 90 deg. toward Kecksburg and there were many and likely sources of error of this magnitude. This is detailed at my website:
www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html
Another problem is that there was supposed to be a Part 2 to the article, which summarized eyewitness testimony that had been collected. Instead, this was never published. It is quite possible the testimony contradicted the Part 1 trajectory, namely that the fireball was headed roughly ESE, not NNE as in the JRASC article. One of the photographers, e.g., wrote Project Blue Book and said it appeared to be headed in an ESE direction. This also, e.g., would have taken it over Elyria, Ohio where the grass fires from the fireball were reported. This would not have been possible with the JRASC trajectory.
As I also pointed out in my critique, the thinning of the trail in the photos is also completely consistent with something headed AWAY from the photographers, not sideways to them as in the JRASC article. (I demonstrated this with mathematical plots.)
(part 2 of 2)
Sky and Telescope magazine also published an article on the fireball and thought it was headed in a roughly SE direction based on eyewitness testimony, or towards Kecksburg, or at right angles to the JRASC trajectory. Another interesting item in S&T was that collectively witnesses placed the duration of the observable event at 3-4 seconds. That duration figure came from one of the JRASC authors who had been collecting witness testimony. This was repeated in the JRASC article, but when it came to using a duration for estimating fireball speed, they instead used only two eyewitnesses, the two photographers, one who said 1 sec, the other 4 sec, then incorrectly claimed the average was 2 seconds, then used that to calculate a speed consistent with a meteor. Had they used the much longer duration of the vast majority of witnesses, the speed would instead have been consistent with something entering from orbit. Why did the authors of the JRASC article ignore the duration estimates of their own bulk of witnesses other than to force-fit a meteor speed? That is just very bad science.
There are other reports in newspapers placing something flying in an easterly to southeasterly direction, or contradicting the JRASC trajectory. Sonic booms were reported to state police throughout western Pennsylvania. (And Project Book also recorded a "noise" reported in Greenburg, PA, about 10 miles north of Kecksburg. According to Stan Gordon, Greensburg was the center of the sonic boom reports.)
A weather observer in Columbus, Ohio, reported seeing a fireball to his east, or in the direction of Kecksburg, not to his north, where the JRASC article claimed the fireball ended. Witnesses in Uniontown, PA, 20 miles SW of Kecksburg, saw a fireball traveling towards eastern suburbs of Uniontown. Had the JRASC trajectory been correct and they were seeing the fireball from over 200 miles away, they should have seen in diving steeply into the ground directly to the NW, not in a northerly direction headed toward to east of Uniontown, or in the general direction of Kecksburg again.
The Pittsburgh airport reported an object in their airspace 4 minutes after the fireball has supposed ended near Detroit 150 miles away. (This was in the John Murphy radio report that aired several days later.) Finally, a former RCAF pilot was on a plane flight headed south of Pittsburgh in the vicinity of Kecksburg and saw a flaming UFO out the LEFT side of the plane or towards his East, then dive at high speed towards the ground. He said the stewardess told him the plane's crew had seen it as well. However, had the event ended near Detroit with the fireball diving into the ground there, it would have been to the NW, or in BACK of the plane and out his RIGHT side, not his left. The RCAF pilot filed a UFO report with Project BB.
As Stan Gordon said, Kecksburg is a very complex case and he could barely touch on the details. If I had a top five UFO crash retrieval list, Kecksburg would be on it (along with Roswell and Shag Harbour).
Albert:
"I don't think that theories like dimensional shifts should be used to give credence to paranormal phenomena, nor do I think that such theories be used to support the UFO phenomenon. This, in spite of the fact that the UFO phenomenon may be totally non-physical in nature."
While I agree that inter-dimensional theories have their problems, I cannot agree that the UFO phenomenon might be totally non-physical. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, from thousands of cases of radar contact, photos/videos, to very physical interactions with the environment, from landing traces on the ground, burning, ground desiccation, physiological effects on nearby observers, effects on nearby foliage, increased radiation, etc.
A classic example of landing traces and burning was 1964 Socorro (and maybe radiation as well). Examples of physiological effects on witnesses during close-encounters was 1980 Cash-Landrum and 1967 Falcon Lake or even 1980 Rendlesham (Sgt. Jim Penniston and his ongoing medical problems said by his doctor to be caused by exposure to radiation). Rendlesham also had ground traces, damage to trees, and increased radiation levels measured and documented by investigating military personnel at the time, plus radar contact. (E.g., see Col. Charles Halt interview with Kevin)
With Kecksburg, when the Sci-Fi channel did their documentary in 2003 and sent in scientists to the landing site pointed to by several eyewitnesses, they documented that overhead tree limbs had indeed been broken in 1965 (based on tree ring analysis) and there was disturbed ground soil at the site. See Leslie Kean's article on this.
Post a Comment