tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5505548159794897962..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Philip Klass and the FBIKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68938277345250047272013-02-08T05:16:54.028-08:002013-02-08T05:16:54.028-08:00When posting a link above to the FBI file on Klass...When posting a link above to the FBI file on Klass, I mentioned I was working on an item to highlight the fact that the 16 files PDF files on the FBI website labelled "UFO" aren't the only FBI files relevant to ufology, e.g. files on UFO researchers and contactees. I've now posted that (fairly long) item at the link below: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread924183/pg1<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />IsaacIsaac Koi - New Uploadshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11834535736869998857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-12482023023043715432013-01-20T15:12:06.797-08:002013-01-20T15:12:06.797-08:00Around 20 years ago Phil Klass offered me a wager ...Around 20 years ago Phil Klass offered me a wager involving staging a UFO landing hoax. I still have the letter somewhere. I replied that what he had suggested was illegal, but was indeed possible. I declined his wager as I interpreted it as an invitation to entrapment.<br /><br />Nice to see that you are now concerned about the definition of slander, Kevin, considering some of the things you said about me some years back. Everyone experiences growth.Fred Miltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00982362902453489001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59500105019107712452013-01-07T17:45:21.616-08:002013-01-07T17:45:21.616-08:00All -
And away we go into things that have nothin...All -<br /><br />And away we go into things that have nothing to do with Phil Klass and his telephone call and letter to the FBI...<br /><br />If you have nothing to say on topic, I think I'll just delete everything else.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-85150118043867141722013-01-07T08:41:16.391-08:002013-01-07T08:41:16.391-08:00Zoam:
Larry described Maccabee as "a highly ...Zoam:<br /><br />Larry described Maccabee as "a highly competent and experienced optical physicist". Maybe so.<br /><br />Presumably this is the same Maccabee who endorsed the Gulf Breeze (Ed Walters) "laughably crude fakes" as genuine UFO photos.<br /><br />But then Maccabee did rake in a sizeable royalty for doing so and for writing the foreword to Walters' book, didn't he?<br /><br />Perhaps I have gone off topic and better shut up.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58242759331962806052013-01-07T08:24:22.064-08:002013-01-07T08:24:22.064-08:00Larry; I've explained why Scientific realists ...Larry; I've explained why Scientific realists routinely dismiss ufoolergists' after-the-fact mystery-mongering mumbo-jumbo. They're irrelevant. An eye witness said it was just "reflected sunlight" and all four pilots agreed there was nothing "flying saucerish" about it. The simple facts of the matter in the real world are worth much more than any Believer's insular pseudoscientific photo analysis.<br /><br />Larry, I've seen equally qualified self-styled ufoolergists employing very similar mathemagical manipulations to "prove" there was a city on Mars; that Apollo 11 was followed by a "UFO;" that routine Shuttle ice blown about by thrusters was an intelligently controlled "UFO;" that Terauchi was followed by a "Giant Mothership;" and that Ed Walters' laughably crude fakes were real visiting spacecraft from another world! All exercises in utter nonsense of course and having currency only in the silly subculture of the "UFO" collective delusion.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10989108817328669142013-01-06T14:59:30.160-08:002013-01-06T14:59:30.160-08:00@Larry:
Don't expect Zoam to respond with an ...@Larry:<br /><br />Don't expect Zoam to respond with an objective or empirical argument, Larry. <br /><br />I don't know what the famous Childerhouse photo actually shows, nor did Childerhouse. It could very well be some bizarre, extremely rare form of "atmospheric plasma" formation, as Philip Klass would have it. I doubt very much that it's a "sun dog" phenomena.<br /><br />But, you'll get no concessions or balanced discussion from Zoam. He does not wish to be bothered by the facts, since his mind is made up. There are just simply no UFOs, only reports, as he incessantly claims. <br /><br />The fact that he is wrong never seems to enter his hidebound brain.<br /><br />Ignore the radar tracking cases, from both ground and airborne radars, and that include direct, close-up visual sightings, the UFOs that have been witnessed to react and interact during pursuit by jet fighters or flying near commercial airliners, EM effects picked up by aircraft, solid multiple-witness incidents involving skeptics, scientists, military and intelligence personnel, theodolite tracking, photos, film, etc. <br /><br />It's <b>all</b> either misidentification, fabricated hoax, prosaic atmospheric phenomena, or delusional confabulation. <br /><br />You see, to Zoam there is zero possibility, regardless of the facts, appearance, behavior, and actions of any UFO ever witnessed and/or reported, past, present, or future, that would rationally suggest even the potential of any form of non-human intelligence, maybe, being involved. Or simply unknown, and undecided or unresolved. The issue is settled. <br /><br />It must be comforting to have such certainty in the psycho-social hypothesis and it's mundane corollaries. One might even say self-satisfied. Zoam has solved the great mystery for us. So, sit back and relax, Larry. Nothing to see here. Move along. <br /><br />As Stanton Friedman has often said (and no, I don't adhere to Friedman's conclusions about Roswell, MJ-12, or the Hill's "abduction," just to be clear), pseudo-skeptical debunkers follow these four dictums:<br /><br />"Debunkers seem to employ four major rules:<br /><br />"1. What the public doesn’t know, we certainly won’t tell them. The largest official USAF UFO study isn’t even mentioned in twelve anti-UFO books, though every one of those books’ authors was aware of it.<br /><br />"2. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.<br /><br />"3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.<br /><br />"4. Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.<br /><br />Simple, in more ways than one.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18838832615573883672013-01-06T14:14:27.535-08:002013-01-06T14:14:27.535-08:00Zoam: I’ve noticed that your speculative explanat...Zoam: I’ve noticed that your speculative explanations of UFO reports seem to be entirely innocent of any accordance with the laws of physics. The 1956 McLeod photo taken from an F-86 aircraft was the subject of a photometric and photogrammetric analysis by Bruce Maccabee. Bruce, of course, is a highly competent and experienced optical physicist and in his analysis he used standard mathematical models that have been validated through many decades of use by members of the relevant technical community. His results were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 13, Number 2 under the title: “Optical Power Output of an Unidentified High Altitude Light Source”. The paper can be accessed in pdf format at http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html<br /><br />The idea that this image is a solar reflection of some type is, of course one of the very first hypotheses that a competent scientist would consider. Bruce did consider it and rejected it because it disagrees with the physical evidence recorded on the film by a very large margin. Taking into account the geometric view angle, the apparent size of the object and the saturation of the film, the optical power radiated by the surface of the object (radiant emmitance) was estimated to be about 6 Watts per square cm, or 60,000 Watts per square meter. You (or any interested party) can use an online calculator to estimate the optical power of the Sun (insolation) available for reflection at that latitude (49.5 deg, N), time of year (August 27) and time of day (20 minutes before sunset). It comes out to about 100 Watts per square meter. <br /><br />In other words, the surface of the phenomenon—whatever it was—was emitting optical power at a rate around 600 times faster than it was receiving power from the Sun. Clearly, the phenomenon was self-luminous. Equally clearly, this means the phenomenon had some type of internal energy source and was not a simple passive reflection of Sunlight.<br /><br />If you disagree with the conclusion, you should be prepared to show where the analysis went wrong.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45446259025004990532013-01-05T13:15:10.505-08:002013-01-05T13:15:10.505-08:00JAF; I've seen all kinds of sundogs--from fain...JAF; I've seen all kinds of sundogs--from faint spectral to bright white. Granted, most are red-tinged, but that doesn't mean that all are. The group leader said it was just "reflected sunlight." Even if not a sundog, it was certainly a reflection of the Sun--if of an uncommon sort. As I said earlier, various mirages, sundogs and other reflections can occur under many different circumstances, even seemingly unique situations as this, as are presenting themselves more often to high-flying pilots. So this was a weather or atmospheric physics event rather than a "UFO."zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39247790890214716982013-01-05T11:50:39.172-08:002013-01-05T11:50:39.172-08:00for the 'Robert Sheaffer' entity:
"I...for the 'Robert Sheaffer' entity:<br /><br />"If Hynek was initially asked to join CSICOP, I haven't heard about that."<br /><br />His UFO Secretary during that time, Margo Metegrano, can certainly attest to the letter from CSICOP....Kurt Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09217079871185958463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33397185738291641412013-01-04T18:24:34.266-08:002013-01-04T18:24:34.266-08:00Sundogs are caused by refraction of the sun's ...Sundogs are caused by refraction of the sun's rays through ice crystals. The amount of the refraction varies with the wavelength of light. Reddish rays are refracted the least, blue the most (similar to why a sunset is reddish and the sky is blue). This shows up both visually and in photos of sundogs with the portion of the dog facing the sun having a reddish tinge. But you don't need to take my word for this. You can visit http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/dogfm.htm which has a nice page on the formation of sundogs.<br /><br />There is no reddish side to the object in the photo. It's nothing but white. Maccabbee comments on this very thing in his arguing against it being a reflection. Even though the image is overexposed and thus whited-out, the refractive nature of a sundog would create a reddish outside edge visible in the photo on one side of it. There is none. In Maccabbee's discussion about it not being a reflection, he points out that a reflection would cause a reddish tinge all around the object, which isn't present. A sundog would differ in that it would produce the reddish tinge only on the side pointing towards the sun. <br /><br />I've seen any number of sundogs in real life. They can't be mistaken for anything else once you've seen one. Possibly you've never seen one.<br /><br />It's not even a "maybe". Hey, it might be a hoax. But a sundog? Not possible.JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19873116274974901372013-01-04T17:34:56.980-08:002013-01-04T17:34:56.980-08:00The fact that Klass was Chief UFO Killer for CSICO...The fact that Klass was Chief UFO Killer for CSICOP tells us something about that organization. I can tell you exactly what CSICOP's position on any given issue will be before any CSICOP spokesman says a word. Admittedly, most of the things CSICOP doesn't believe in are probably physically impossible...but alien spaceships aren't impossible, whether or not they actually exist.<br />Besides, "Skeptical Enquirer" is, in my opinion, a crashing bore on almost every subject, ludicrous or not.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14694767061933960513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24451555160965453142013-01-04T16:12:07.368-08:002013-01-04T16:12:07.368-08:00JAF; As I thought I made very clear, third-party i...JAF; As I thought I made very clear, third-party interpretations of the event cannot be evidence. All we have are the two photos; the pilot's changing, admittedly confused account over time; his statement that none of four considered it anything significant, the flight leader saying it was just "reflected sunlight," and later he didn't even recall the event. In the photo we have, the sundog is obviously below to his left and ahead.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59034258913582467572013-01-04T13:56:59.712-08:002013-01-04T13:56:59.712-08:00zoamchomsky,
A sundog would maintain its relative...zoamchomsky,<br /><br />A sundog would maintain its relative position to the sun as the pilot traveled west. It would always be in front of him. In contrast, this is what the object did:<br /><br /><i>As he continued westward the sighting line to the object rotated backward to an “eight o’clock low” position before he lost sight of it, indicating that it was stationary in the lee of the anvil of the thunderhead <br />at an altitude considerably below the plane.</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i> As he flew past he decided to take a photo of the object.</i> <br /><br />The pilot can't fly past a sundog. It would continue to be in front of him as he headed west. So it's not a sundog, not even a good impersonation of one. But I must say you do a mean impersonation of Phil Klass by ignoring the parts of the sighting which conflict with whatever hypothesis you're proposing. Congratulations! :-)JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75075942976895590122013-01-04T09:44:40.993-08:002013-01-04T09:44:40.993-08:00JAF; Addressing your paragraphs one through four. ...JAF; Addressing your paragraphs one through four. We have a photo of clouds and a bright spot--that appears to show nothing more than a typical sundog--and the pilot's ordinary account of how it was made which strongly suggests the sundog identification: the Sun is near setting; he's headed west into the Sun approximately; and the sundog is at an angle of 22° necessarily and at the same elevation as the Sun. He was UNSURE of the exactly position of either or the angle between them. <br /><br />Various mirages, sundogs and other reflections can occur under many different circumstances. And no number of Sherlock Holmes mathemagical mumbo-jumbo eliminations will prove the bright spot in the photo is not a mundane reflection and so be transformed into an extraordinary "unidentified" of some kind.<br /><br />Making far too much of the compounded imprecision of subjective measurements, and intentionally ignoring the real but mundane contingencies inherent in real-world events, are well-known devices used by pseudoscientists for manufacturing a bare possibility of an extraordinary explanation. It's merely a disguised appeal to ignorance.<br /><br />A photo is never going to be evidence of a real "UFO," much less BE a real "UFO" of any kind. A real "UFO" (TRUFO) would be an unambiguous celestial object that exists in the world--has presence, substance, persistence--but defies explanation. So far, there are no real "UFOs" in the world, there are no "UFO" facts of any kind.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10276415302571979272013-01-04T04:29:47.214-08:002013-01-04T04:29:47.214-08:00I agree that Director Hoover was chomping at the b...I agree that Director Hoover was chomping at the bit from 1947 to perhaps 1955. I have been going through the Project Blue Book files for several years. The FBI was often on distribution for teletype messages at the HQ USAF level. In my opinion Hoover became convinced there was no way to use UFO investi-<br />gations to build up the FBI or to make political hay. In the mid-1950s there were many FBI letters addressed to PBB passing along reports. I am now in early 1959, and haven't seen a FBI letter for quite some time. Others might save that Hoover was pressured into getting out of the UFO investigation business. I just think he may have retained a personal interest.<br /><br />Terry "sweating in Thailand" ColvinTerry's Bazaarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06806614524981774181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61779261172885251172013-01-03T17:42:19.329-08:002013-01-03T17:42:19.329-08:00zoamchomsky wrote "image of dubious provenanc...zoamchomsky wrote "image of dubious provenance." Credit to the pilot of the F86 is shown on the image (http://brumac.8k.com/RJC/Childerh1.gif). Now if you've got some reason to think that is <i>not</i> his photo, you've an obligation to notify him or Dr. Maccabbee. Otherwise you've made a frivolous claim which can be made about every photo on the web.<br /><br />Mirages are seen near the horizon. There is no horizon visible in the photo. Maccabbee discussed the issue of reflections in his report and ruled them out. In short, any mundane cause of the image would have been detected by someone in all these many years since the photo was taken.<br /><br />As the object did not move around, I'm not going to suggest anything as exotic as an intelligently controlled craft. A much more likely explanation would be an unknown atmospheric phenomenon. Now that to me meets the definition a "real" UFO. Or would you care to identify the object and end the mystery? <br /><br />Now this is assuming it's not a hoax. You are correct, any photo we look at could be a hoax. But to jump for any to ALL photos are hoaxes is a leap in logic which you've already taken by asserting that there are no real UFOs. It's a big leap in logic which I feel uncomfortable with as I can come up with no rational justification for making it.JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75989725626719726902013-01-03T15:04:57.119-08:002013-01-03T15:04:57.119-08:00So far as I know, Kal Korff never 'befriended&...So far as I know, Kal Korff never 'befriended' Klass. I recall seeing some very contentious correspondence that Klass sent to Korff. Perhaps this mellowed a bit when Korff had become an active Roswell skeptic, but some of Korff's investigations were so far-out (he told me about archaeological evidence of the Pharaoh's men being drowned in the Red Sea) that I don't think Klass ever was comfortable with Korff. <br /><br />As for the Lucci photos, Klass was inclined to believe they were 'genuine plasma UFOs,' even after Condon and the Hartmann analysis. I was the one who persuaded Klass that they were hoaxes, and made some replications of them on my own. Much later, one of the brothers confessed the hoax to CUFOS.<br /><br />If Hynek was initially asked to join CSICOP, I haven't heard about that. But recalling that Marcello truzzi was the co-founder of CSICOP, along with Paul Kurtz, I would not be surprised if Truzzi had invited Hynek. Of course, Kurtz, Klass, Randi, Gardner, etc. would all have objected to this. You can understand why Truzzi and Kurtz did not last long together.Robert Sheafferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324537021429419111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29577803354246426302013-01-03T11:38:40.384-08:002013-01-03T11:38:40.384-08:00JAF; As we've just seen with the Trent photos,...JAF; As we've just seen with the Trent photos, anyone can make a photo and make up a "UFO" story about it--that is, force their photo into a "UFO" context. And anyone can take a photo of some ambiguous light in the sky and honestly believe they've seen something extraordinary, and tell a story about the event.<br /><br />Here we have an image of dubious provenance and a third-hand guesswork account of the details of its creation. Bright mirages, reflections of many kinds, are often seen above water, above or below clouds, and very often at sunset. So, given these real-world considerations, the likelihood of this being a rather mundane event is much more plausible than it being an extraordinary one.<br /><br />But if it really was one, where's the rest of the story? There were four Sabres.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91535159612056215342013-01-03T09:41:16.484-08:002013-01-03T09:41:16.484-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43096474622637170212013-01-03T07:47:13.109-08:002013-01-03T07:47:13.109-08:00Phil Klass had at least one UFO which he believed ...Phil Klass had at least one UFO which he believed to be "real". <br /><br />As Bruce Maccabbee puts it on http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2000/sep/m18-009.shtml ,<br /><br /><i>My analysis of the photo taken by Canadian Air Force pilot RJ<br />Childerhose in 1955 is now available at<br />brumac.8k.com/rjc/rjc.html.<br /><br />This was, and I think still is, the only photo endorsed by none<br />other than Philip J. Klass as a real unknown "UFO"... although<br />he believes it to be a huge plasma/ball lightning. This photo<br />appears on the front cver of his first book. This case was<br />presented at the "Sturrock Panel" discussion in Tarrytown, NY,<br />several years ago and has been mentioned by Jacques Vallee as an<br />example of the optical power radiated by some UFOs.</i><br /><br />As plasma/ball lighting has been pretty much ruled out as an explanation for this sighting, it gets tossed back into the unknown category, which according to zoamchomsky doesn't exist because "real" UFOs don't exist. But a nice color photo of that non-existant UFO disputes zoam's conclusion.<br /><br />The intensity of light from the UFO overexposed the film giving it a blurry look which it didn't possess in real life. The object was said to have very distinct edges according to the RAF pilot who saw it.JAFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561122768163844341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42937834347590396442013-01-02T01:52:26.672-08:002013-01-02T01:52:26.672-08:00....Klass' industry magazine posting was/is ca.......Klass' industry magazine posting was/is called "Aviation Week'..... known in the business as 'Aviation Leak' <br /><br />(...a fact that I trust will be the subject of Tony Bragalia's next breathless "EXCLUSIVE!!!!!")Kurt Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09217079871185958463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10927526615581558222013-01-02T01:47:48.154-08:002013-01-02T01:47:48.154-08:00do your homework, children:
1. CUFOS was formed i...do your homework, children:<br /><br />1. CUFOS was formed in 1974<br /><br />2. Hynek was asked to join CSICOP during their formation process, but declined as he felt they leaned towards predetermined conclusions, NOT actual scientific method<br /><br />3. Klass' whole career was as Senior Avionics Editor for the Cold War's primary CIA anti-Soviet disinfo publicationKurt Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09217079871185958463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70510702981027194092013-01-01T06:50:00.924-08:002013-01-01T06:50:00.924-08:00Lance: "The differences between skeptics and ...Lance: "The differences between skeptics and proponents, of course, almost always lie in interpretation of evidence."<br /><br />There are disagreements over what constitutes evidence, too. The problem is the positions are polarized and I doubt there is any common ground.<br /><br />I've nothing to say about Klass or Hynek here, so I'll bow out.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-2198299302805719262012-12-31T17:38:03.991-08:002012-12-31T17:38:03.991-08:00Lance -
While you often take off into the irrelev...Lance -<br /><br />While you often take off into the irrelevant, I will point out that the article was about Klass' attack on Hynek... not someone else attacking Klass. Do you have an example of Hynek attacking Klass in a similar fashion? Who make Klass keeper of the flame?<br /><br />And while you name some nut case who slandered Klass, that is still irrelevant to the discussion.<br /><br />Given your comments about tax money, I take that to mean you are outraged that not only was half a million dollars wasted by Condon, they actually gave him more money. And Hynek wasn't advocating spending tax money but promoting a lan to save it.<br /><br />And some of us have actually thanked Klass for making us work harder... and we also know that he would invent testimony to fit his creative explanations.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82695534333876185132012-12-31T16:01:11.532-08:002012-12-31T16:01:11.532-08:00JAF is right and I am wrong.
Apparently, Klass fi...JAF is right and I am wrong.<br /><br />Apparently, Klass figured out part of the story (the hand and saucer bit) but didn't know enough about photography to go any further.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.com