tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post3773662549243733598..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Foo Fighters and the USS New YorkKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68637024635035491902013-08-07T18:04:50.440-07:002013-08-07T18:04:50.440-07:00Jim -
Sorry... misunderstood your comment and too...Jim -<br /><br />Sorry... misunderstood your comment and took it too far...<br /><br />The next source of information will be the deck logs which might provide the answer to the radar question.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41262620618853090742013-08-07T16:01:57.049-07:002013-08-07T16:01:57.049-07:00Kevin,
If you re-read my last comment you will see...<br />Kevin,<br />If you re-read my last comment you will see I was referring to the <b>radar object</b> as "certainly not Venus", and I stand by that statement. Yes, I have read the NICAP file and I saw enough references to radar there, as well as some visual descriptions (although visual descriptions usually vary a lot) which could not be Venus,to convince me this is not an open-and-shut case.<br /><br />Admittedly the firing description seems to strongly implicate Venus as the firing target, but Venus is never so conspicuous as to attract anyone's attention; so what drew the <i>New York's</i> attention to it? <br /><br />Even if you stipulate that the ship was firing at Venus, it still seems to me there should be some curiosity about radar's role in all this. Yes, the radar accounts are "iffy", but so are the visual descriptions. My whole point all along has been that if you are looking for pre-Kenneth Arnold discs, the radar object in this case could possibly be one, although admittedly the chances of finding that out are pretty slim.<br /><br /> Regards,<br />JimJim Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509149778784903417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54292774727738447942013-08-06T18:50:00.063-07:002013-08-06T18:50:00.063-07:00I think Jim just means that the radar return could...I think Jim just means that the radar return couldn't have been Venus, which we all agree on and didn't need to be said. <br /><br />The thing everyone saw in the sky seems to almost certainly have been Venus. <br /><br />Jim may be hanging onto the radar/light in the sky correlation. These false correlations plague many early UFO stories.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19984386912941603932013-08-06T18:24:31.117-07:002013-08-06T18:24:31.117-07:00Jim -
Have you bothered to read the file availabl...Jim -<br /><br />Have you bothered to read the file available at the NICAP site and cited in the post. I do not know how you can say that "It certainly was not Venus!" It certainly could have been...<br /><br />And I'm not sure how reliable the reports of radar contact are, given the statements by others. That seems to be a ver "iffy" proposition.<br /><br />I have sent for the deck logs which probably won't shed much light on this...<br /><br />And I am astonished that some will defend this case. It seems as if the ship's navigator provided a solid answer for it.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77048971355233495062013-08-06T10:55:53.637-07:002013-08-06T10:55:53.637-07:00Lance,
I do feel further investigation is warrante...Lance,<br />I do feel further investigation is warranted. Kevin apparently broached this subject because of his search for pre-Arnold disc sightings. It's just remotely possible the radar object in this case was a disc (It certainly wasn't Venus!). The scientific method doesn't include ignoring data which doesn't fit a certain scenario.<br /><br />Regards,<br />JimJim Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509149778784903417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91899813337375449422013-08-05T21:09:50.955-07:002013-08-05T21:09:50.955-07:00Ok Don--I think I overstated things a bit (on the ...Ok Don--I think I overstated things a bit (on the saucer pilots and such) so I apologize for that.<br /><br />If you look above, I agree that I have not proven anything in regards to the radar cases nor has my contention been disproven...<br /><br />In regards to the photo/video evidence the case is much stronger: well-known increase in cameras with no difference in quality of UFO evidence.<br /><br />Lance Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72402877581112884482013-08-05T21:02:40.056-07:002013-08-05T21:02:40.056-07:00Lance wrote:
Don apparently doesn't agree (des...Lance wrote:<br /><i>Don apparently doesn't agree (despite now multiple forms of evidence being presented) that cases did decline. Notice that he has offered zero actual evidence in refutation</i><br /><br />I don't really have much problem in accepting that radar cases number has decreased along time. I still believe the evidence is weak, but don't you worry for that. My main problem is when you try to make a great deal of such decrease. After seeing the posts of others, there might be about a dozen different <i>possible</i> reasons for such decrease, but apparently your omniscient mind is capable of knowing which reasons are valid and which are not. <br /><br />Lance wrote:<br /><i>although he does talk about his beloved imaginary saucer pilots and their motivations for making his religion unfalsifiable.</i><br /><br />I don't admire the saucer pilots nor they constitute my religion. I am proud of never having tried to teach my young son or wife about my UFO interests. I try to avoid talking about UFOs or ETs at home. On the contrary, I have some reasons to infer that some UFO skeptics like you, have some tendencies that are similar to religious beliefs.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13436692760925808022013-08-05T20:57:02.667-07:002013-08-05T20:57:02.667-07:00Hi Larry,
So you just accepted the Couldn't-B...<br />Hi Larry,<br /><br />So you just accepted the Couldn't-Be-Venus explanation and added on your unique other side of the planet pontification (if I might use that word) without bothering to check anything? Interesting. I wonder why a UFO proponent might do such a thing?<br /><br />Indeed, if Tim hadn't set you guys straight, I'm sure we might have seen the erroneous info quoted over and over whenever this case came up.<br /><br />You might want to read the rest of my post from a few days ago--(the one where you said that you knew I wouldn't understand)--to see that I also wrote:<br /><br />"Hmm..rereading Larry's post, I'm not sure if his contention is that the light in the sky and radar return were the same thing. Indeed, he could be referring to a return from somewhere else, for instance a ship on the surface. If this is the case then I have no disagreement."<br /><br />In other words I exactly understood the whole thing that you superfluously reiterate above. Who is it that doesn't understand, again?<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-11578530421292572162013-08-05T20:07:12.298-07:002013-08-05T20:07:12.298-07:00Lance asked:
"Was wondering Larry if you cou...Lance asked:<br /><br />"Was wondering Larry if you could explain your earlier sentence...it could not possibly have been Venus because Venus was on the wrong side of the planet to be visible."<br /><br />Good catch.<br /><br />It was a mistake on my part, pure and simple. In my haste, I misinterpreted Jim's argument and remembered it incorrectly later on, when I went to write. I should have double checked.<br /><br />I remembered his argument as being that Venus was below the horizon, at the time. Jim Printy's admonition notwithstanding, It IS possible for Venus to be below the horizon and in fact, on the other side of the planet, from the perspective of an observer on the Earth's surface. In fact it happens every 24 hour cycle.<br /><br />However, on the day and hour in question, Venus was not only above the horizon, it was (by my estimations using the JPL online Solar System Simulator) probably within about 10 or 15 degrees of the zenith, so an excellent candidate to be seen as "overhead" the ship.<br /><br />However, that still doesn't explain what was happening with the radar. A radar set, after all, doesn't know or care where Venus is in the sky. <br /><br />Unless new documentary evidence emerges regarding the operation of the radar at the time of the incident, I stand by my previous analysis regarding signal aliasing.<br /><br />You further stated:<br /><br />"Larry seems to concludes that the simplest(!) solution is a huge object hanging the sky behind the ship!:<br /><br />No, I didn't really expect you to be able to understand. I said that the simplest explanation is that the radar was detecting and tracking a large radio-reflective object that was considerably beyond the range gate distance for which it had been designed. I still think that is probably what happened, but I suspect this is a case of radar reflection. The ship's radar was possibly picking up the reflected image of another nearby, large metallic object, possibly another Navy surface vessel.<br /><br />As I see it, the captain was in the command center belowdecks when the radar detected, tracked, and ranged a bogie within about 5 miles of the ship--definitely a threatening position. Not suspecting that the radar return might be a sky reflection of a distant surface vessel, he (like you) erroneously assumed the bogie must be in the sky. He went topside to try to get a visual on the target and fixed on the only significant object in the sky--Venus. Using the targeting data supplied to him by the radar, he fired in what he thought was the direction of the target with no effect.<br /><br />The data also allows, but does not require that the large radioreflective object was hanging in the air beyond his visual range. Unless your religion prohibits you from believing in such things.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76178557472069368442013-08-05T17:28:21.138-07:002013-08-05T17:28:21.138-07:00Not sure if that is a missing word or just a poorl...Not sure if that is a missing word or just a poorly constructed sentence. The NICAP report reads the same way.<br /><br />If we find out differently though, I'm sure the case will be cracked wide open!<br /><br />Was wondering Larry if you could explain your earlier sentence:<br /><br />"However, as Jim Robinson has pointed out, it could not possibly have been Venus because Venus was on the wrong side of the planet to be visible."<br /><br />Where does stuff like this come from? Do you just make up the things you say between complaining about preening and pontificating (!) skeptics?<br /><br />Lance<br /><br /><br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67424739812310981362013-08-05T17:22:04.148-07:002013-08-05T17:22:04.148-07:00Larry -
I embedded a link in the story that would...Larry -<br /><br />I embedded a link in the story that would have lead you to that specific quote, which is what it says with the word missing.<br /><br />So, the word is missing in the original document.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3811527479414501432013-08-05T17:09:15.385-07:002013-08-05T17:09:15.385-07:00Kevin, in your original posting you wrote:
"...Kevin, in your original posting you wrote:<br /><br />"The reason the radar failed to detect a target was due to the fact of its maximum [] which was 20,000 yards, well beyond the range of our anti-aircraft guns..." <br /><br />where I have inserted square brackets [] to indicate that a crucial word has been omitted. I don't know if you accidentally omitted the word in your transcription of the quote or if it is missing in the original, but I think it is important to know what the meaning of that sentence is. I don't have a copy of Strange Company, or I would look it up myself. Could you please supply the missing word?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10401645069536702982013-08-05T15:26:15.910-07:002013-08-05T15:26:15.910-07:00All -
I'm a little surprised that this case h...All -<br /><br />I'm a little surprised that this case has taken off the way it has. Seems to me that the answer is Venus. Seems to me that the navigator identified it as such. Seems to me that the guy on the scene would be the one to believe. And, since all this played out in the days and weeks after the event, I see little need to go beyond it. As I say, I'm surprised that anyone thinks this is anything more than a case of mistaken identity.<br /><br />However, due diligence seems to demand that we take a look at the deck logs. I have sent the request, and as soon as I know anything more, I'll post it here.<br /><br />Seems that I am on the side of Lance and Gilles on this one.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25304328620481058562013-08-05T12:27:35.740-07:002013-08-05T12:27:35.740-07:00Jim,
Do you really think further investigation i...Jim, <br /><br />Do you really think further investigation is needed on this case? Does it really warrant it?<br /><br />I'd like to see more research on why UFO believers will do anything before they will drop a case because I suspect that is where UFOs really exist.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13758720721327520762013-08-05T11:54:24.875-07:002013-08-05T11:54:24.875-07:00Tim Printy is correct. When I computed the positio...Tim Printy is correct. When I computed the position of Venus, I neglected to allow for leap years, so Venus really <b>was</b> near its point of maximum visibility in mid-March. That being said, it is always difficult to find in the middle of the day even when you know exactly where to look. It may have been seen by the crew, but if so I contend it was because something else directed their attention to that part of the sky first. Logically, that something was probably radar. One of the visual witnesses described the object as much larger than the brightest star but smaller than the full moon.I know of no-one who has seen Venus in broad daylight who would describe it in those terms. There were a lot of contradictory descriptions of the incident given by the various witnesses, but I see no more reason to ignore this person's account than anyone else's.<br /><br />Incidentally, most if not all naval vessels in WWII were equipped with air-search radar capable of detecting fighter planes out to 100 miles or so, but everyone here seems to be arguing about fire-control radar.<br />It would be interesting to know what the <i>New York's</i> air-search radar was seeing then.<br />Also, if the logs have any info showing elevation/azimuth of the firing at whatever-it-was.Jim Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509149778784903417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50564452598611124382013-08-05T11:39:47.227-07:002013-08-05T11:39:47.227-07:00Please, David Rudiak:
Dont deduce what "Gille...Please, David Rudiak:<br />Dont deduce what "Gilles" will think when you present your total deliriums for your ET hypothesis of alien craft and your "sticks and foils" supra tuning space craft crashing in Roswell. Thank you very much, Doctor Rudiak.<br /><i> Plus there is no central clearing house for such data in all but a few countries, like France.</i><br /><br />TY for the few country. "Doctor Rudiak". When a French pilot reports a visual thing, in my few country, he takes it to civil ground radar airports. If they have nothing, and the pilot or the crew continue to see "something", it is immediatly sending to military radars, I expect they dont detect only transpondeur targets...<br />In France, we have only one "solid" case by radar. The one I summerized the counter-tons before. We have minor ones (Orly UFO ie.).<br /><br />But you, as Believer (in a speech disguished as a scientific one), you will defend there are not a diminution of radar-visual cases, time after time, imploring and praying for dunno what pale excuses, despite the DATAES showing such diminution. That's ufology!<br />GillesGilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30448738547848313992013-08-05T11:26:01.712-07:002013-08-05T11:26:01.712-07:00The correlation I mentioned isn't one of radar...The correlation I mentioned isn't one of radar screens to objects in the sky. It's the after the fact supposed correlation of inaccurate third party sightings of (usually) lights in the sky somewhere to disconnected radar tracks, usually by nutty UFO believers.<br /><br />This was rampant in UFO accounts of the 1952 Washington DC "attack" and is demonstrated quite handily in this description of the New York incident. In another celebrated case, the 1976 Tehran UFO, it is clear the proponents have misrepresented correlation of radar tracking.<br /><br />I think Rudiak is correct in his basic contention that I haven't proven that improvements in radar were the sole cause of the decline in celebrated radar cases. I don't think he has proven the converse, either.<br /><br />As I have said, MUCH more damming is that UFO photo/video evidence has not improved one iota over time. For instance, why didn't any of the many people at the Chicago airport think to shoot a photo of the spectacular saucer hanging over them? <br /><br />I know that the buffs rationalize this out of their worldview but other folks just point and laugh.<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-9692723750015897892013-08-05T10:55:02.189-07:002013-08-05T10:55:02.189-07:00Response to Lance (2 of 2)
Don apparently doesn...Response to Lance (2 of 2)<br /><i>Don apparently doesn't agree (despite now multiple forms of evidence being presented) that cases did decline. Notice that he has offered zero actual evidence in refutation although he does talk about his beloved imaginary saucer pilots and their motivations for making his religion unfalsifiable.</i><br /><br />What everyone is pointing out is that the decline could simply be a case of sampling error rather than real (or it could be a combo of both), the result of changes in reporting such cases and changes in radar technology over the decades, some instances I’ve mentioned above. You can only draw valid conclusions after trying to take into account all factors that might be biasing a result one way or another. Thus multiple things happened in the 1960s that might influence whether UFOs show up on radar or are reported at all, and thus the number of radar/visual cases.<br /><br />As usual, Lance and Gilles have a highly simplistic approach to things, whereas in REAL scientific analysis, things are rarely clear-cut. E.g., suppose a community introduced fluoridated water in the 1960s and thereafter someone notices that cancer rates drop there. Lance/Gilles simplistically conclude that fluoridation decreases cancer. But a real medical epidemiologist would look at a whole gamut of factors that might influence cancer rates, such as changes air quality, changes in diet, changes in population demographics (e.g., maybe a younger population is moving in and that alone would account for a drop in cancer), changes in use of chemical sprays, etc., etc. Then they would do a multi-factorial statistical analysis to try to isolate what factor or factors most likely account for the cancer drop, eliminating factors that do not. When studied in this way, it might turn out that fluoridation only coincidentally seemed to correlate with the cancer drop, but really is was because the population got younger. Fluoridation might actually increase cancer rates, but the effect would be masked by the real factor that caused it to drop in that area.<br /><br />In short, without doing such an analysis, there is no way of knowing for sure if some apparent trend is real or not. (Or as the saying goes, correlation is not causation.) It could be radar-visual cases are way up for the military, but since they don’t make these cases public, there is no way of knowing. And maybe the real causes for the drop-off in civilian radar-visuals are indeed multifactorial, a combination of a greater reliance on SSR transponder technology for tracking civilian air traffic (where UFOs would not show up at all), computer filtering of PSR signals which would eliminate most UFO tracks, and the FAA being non-cooperative with their radar data just like the military. Plus there is no central clearing house for such data in all but a few countries, like France.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80693086184678337232013-08-05T10:51:40.284-07:002013-08-05T10:51:40.284-07:00Lance wrote (part 1 of 2)
Radar cases have always ...Lance wrote (part 1 of 2)<br /><i>Radar cases have always been more in the wheelhouse of the paranormal believers anyway since it is easy to "correlate" unrelated lights in the sky to radar returns, just as we see in the Kevin's post.</i><br /><br />It is vastly more likely that a radar return will directly correlate with something real in the sky, else it is useless as a navigation instrument, right? <br /><br /><i>By the way Kevin, the trend of fewer and fewer radar cases started in the 1960's. When did the more sophisticated transponder technology come into play? I believe that is a much more recent development and doesn't explain the trend as you suggest but I could be wrong.</i><br /><br />Yes, you are probably wrong. Transponders, or secondary surveillance radar (SSR) technology was introduced in the 1960s and began to supplement and even replace PSR (primary surveillance radar) in many locations for civilian air traffic control. SSR does not directly detect aircraft by "painting" them with transmitted radar signals which then reflect off the aircraft back to a receiver, like does PSR. <br /><br />Instead SSR transmits a query signal, and transponders on aircraft automatically respond with an identity code and altitude data from their altimeters, all of which can be put on a screen. This relieved air traffic controllers of the task of memorizing the identity of PSR blips and having to query pilots by radio for their altitudes. SSR can also detect the distance to the target by the timing delay and the azimuth from the rotation angle of the SSR unit. This is enough to pinpoint an aircraft in 3D space.<br /><br />In addition, PSR has an inverse fourth power drop-off in signal (inverse square to the target and another inverse square reflected from the target), whereas SSR is only inverse square since the SSR and the transponder each transmit their own signal. This gives it greater range and it takes a lot less power to operate SSR (thus more likely to be used at smaller airports).<br /><br />But if an aircraft has no transponder or turns it off, SSR cannot "see" them. A whole fleet of Vogon warships could be hovering in the sky and be totally invisible to SSR.<br /><br />Also, where are SSR and PSR pointed? They are designed to check out the civilian flight lanes, not scan in all directions, such as overhead. Thus the Chicago O’Hare saucer a few years back, reported directly overhead, would not be picked up by PSR there.<br /><br />Another thing that happened at the end of the 1960s is the USAF went out of the public UFO business. They were the primary source of radar and radar/visual cases that made it into the PUBLIC arena. MUFON only got the USAF radar data in the Stephensville case through FOIA requests after the AF denied having any aircraft in the area. This turned Stephensville from a purely visual case into a radar-visual one. Oh yes, according to MUFON analysts, the AF did have interceptors in the area and the radar data DID correlate with the witness reports.<br /><br />And yet another thing introduced in the 1960s was computer processing of raw PSR data instead of having “dumb” blips on a screen. Radar tracking software tries to make sense of changes in blip locations from successive rotations of the radar, turning them into understandable tracks and rejecting what might be noise. Problem here is that you can filter out real targets that dumb radar does not, such as if they have erratic tracks that conventional aircraft do not (e.g., zig-zags, right-angle turns, flying straight up or down at high speed), or accelerating at rates or flying at speeds well beyond those of conventional aircraft. And those are some of the very hallmarks of what makes a UFO a UFO.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-16023680869122526922013-08-05T10:17:34.554-07:002013-08-05T10:17:34.554-07:00Thanks Tim,
It is interesting if excuses are bein...Thanks Tim,<br /><br />It is interesting if excuses are being simply made up (other side of the planet!) just to support the UFO claim.<br /><br />I know that I have seen other UFO proponents do this: making scientific pronouncements that are often verbose but also completely wrong (feel free to ask me for details).<br /><br />Folks like me don't know that much about planet positions, so that sounded very convincing, Larry! But I still checked with Tim, since he DOES know a lot about that topic.<br /><br />Now I am so excited to see where the next bit of UFO thinking will take us!<br /><br />Lance Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83860026748979193012013-08-05T10:00:36.616-07:002013-08-05T10:00:36.616-07:00Venus reached inferior conjunction on April 15, 19...Venus reached inferior conjunction on April 15, 1945.<br /><br />http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/venus1899.pdf<br /><br />It was not "on the other side of the planet". Venus can't be on the other side of the planet from the sun. It is an impossibility. It is always within 45-50 degres of the sun. To set the record straight, in mid-march (when this supposedly happened), Venus was a prominent evening sky object. It reached greatest brilliancy on March 11th. Venus can be easily seen in the day time sky under such conditions. All you have to do is know where to look.<br /><br />BTW, please get your astronomical facts correct before making proclamations that everybody is going to repeat as if they were facts. Either give a source for the claim or use a planetarium program for goodness sakes.<br />Tim Printyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06115389684481839803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49190324635675673892013-08-05T08:57:15.786-07:002013-08-05T08:57:15.786-07:00Anthony,
Amazed that you might believe academic s...Anthony,<br /><br />Amazed that you might believe academic studies were readily available for UFO minutia!<br /><br />Were you only looking for studies that used your, no doubt, highly academic method of simply proclaiming "solid cases" because I think those might be rare.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-248594790374377932013-08-05T08:25:22.183-07:002013-08-05T08:25:22.183-07:00Lance
Amazed you quote NICAP radcat as if it were ...Lance<br />Amazed you quote NICAP radcat as if it were an academic study. As an aside having gone through a lot of it the proportion of what I would term solid cases is quite low, although still quite a number of these over the decades. When you strip out those without good primary data and sufficient evidence to suggest conventional explanations are unlikely the average rate is around one every two or three years in that catalogue. Only a slight decline in rate evident after the closure of blue book, lately due to non-USA cases increasing. Suspect this may be a reporting effect but wouldn't use a catalogue as a formal study. Think Kevin hits a fairly large nail on the head re; technical issues.<br /><br />Larry... Very interesting sequence of comments. It should be straightforward to validate the Venus issue. I shall have a go when back in the land of decent bandwidth!Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21485724238779919802013-08-05T07:15:33.429-07:002013-08-05T07:15:33.429-07:00Okay -
Let's start again. I'm not sure th...Okay -<br /><br />Let's start again. I'm not sure that radar played a part in this, other than the suggesting of the MUFON witness who might have assumed it. He said the object disappeared straight up when the firing stopped which, of course, doesn't make good sense.<br /><br />Anyway, the next step is to get the ship's deck logs for the date, if mid-March 1945 is accurate, so I have taken that step. Don't know how long it will take. This might solve some of the problems...<br /><br />And I'm a little disturbed that the ship's navigator would identify the light as Venus when those sitting around today say that Venus would have been invisible. I'd take the word of the navigator who should have know Venus when he saw it... again, maybe the deck logs will tell us something.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4756099112080804122013-08-05T06:58:28.269-07:002013-08-05T06:58:28.269-07:00Interestingly, Larry seems to concludes that the s...Interestingly, Larry seems to concludes that the simplest(!) solution is a huge object hanging the sky behind the ship!<br /><br />I shouldn't have written that UFO proponents don't understand issues with radar--that part doesn't matter as much. Closer to what I was trying to convey, is that they take advantage of limitations to promote UFO stories--most specifically the known problem with radar angels. Not referring to Larry here.<br /><br />This is exactly what happened in the famous and much beloved 1952 Washington D.C. "attack".<br /><br />Hmm..rereading Larry's post, I'm not sure if his contention is that the light in the sky and radar return were the same thing. Indeed, he could be referring to a return from somewhere else, for instance a ship on the surface. If this is the case then I have no disagreement. If the claim is that a huge object hanging the sky is more likely than a radar angel then I would just have to disagree (along with anyone else who is slightly rational).<br /><br />The claim that the thing departed (from the MUFON "investigator" Pratt) and that it went of the radar scopes at the same time (how was the correlated?) is not supported by the other witnesses. Indeed the addition of the claim that it went off the radar scopes (by a topside corporal) indicates embellishment. <br /><br />Further signs of breathless embellishment may have come from the MUFON "investigator" : "Everyone aboard the ship was stunned by this; they had never seen anything like it." <br /><br /><br /><br />Lance<br /><br /><br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.com