The Evidentiary Thread (Exhibits, Documentation, Testimony)

Hard to debunk

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby wetsystems » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:49 pm

witness tampering


Serious charge. Any evidence to support it? Or just another red herring?
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain


Postby ryguy » Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:28 pm

Serpentime wrote:
...My error here was assuming that this discussion included proposing alternative hypothesis than the T-2H tests. I'd actually be interested, in time, to hear your proposed hypothesis, Serp, if you'd be willing.


No, Ryan. I don't think you've made an error, at all. :) In fact, anyone who can present a validated (or, "validate-able"?) theory on this case is more than welcome to contribute their ideas, too - as far as I'm concerned.


Understood - however I did make the mistake of proposing a possible alternative to the Bell 47 issue that would somewhat resolve problems with that aspect, without providing any evidence that such other specific helicopters were used in those tests - however AD has pointed out above that it's at least a possibility that other helicopters were used in those tests - albeit no documentation to show they were used on that day and for that test.

But more importantly, I think the other point AD makes above is important - the blue-book investigation itself ran up a "brick wall" despite a need to know. It's somewhat naive to think that those investigating would have access to all programs ongoing at the time of this case. But since the scientific approach is expected for all hypothesis, documentation required in all cases (whether it's Terrestrial or ET centered)...I just couldn't help observe the fact that Toon has an obvious bias for the ETH when there's even less supporting documentation (none that he's offered here in this thread) for that than there is for AD's hypothesis that he's carefully presented here.

P.S. I think that Toon has brought a balancing perspective to these proceedings, and - so long as he plays nice :D - I'm inclined to keep him, and his "special" perspective, around. :)


Perspective is one thing - flailing around and attempting to give a black-eye to anyone who disagrees with him is another.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:20 am

“Let the nightmare begin…” :twisted: LOL



PART ONE: THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE


As we have been learning through first-hand experimentation in this thread, witness testimony is often difficult to quantify and/or qualify.

So far, we have seen that Zamora’s testimony may be interpreted in different ways to support different conclusions regarding the nature of his “sighting”. One side of the argument may emphasize certain parts of the testimony, and omit – or de-emphasize – others, while the opposite perspective is equally capable of adopting the same types of selective interpretation.


Regrettably, perhaps, we appear at a scientific impasse?


Fortunately, however, in the Socorro case, additional evidence also exists by which we might better try to understand, interpret, and ultimately explain this event.


As AD has stated, he appears anxious to consider my arguments regarding the physical evidence that appears to have been documented at the so-called “landing site”. By all accounts, this evidence was manifest and agreed by many of those present to be germane to the event.

To date, I have not made any comment in response to AD’s prior representations, but will do so now, seeing as the current lines of argument appear to be inconclusive and in dispute.



~ First off, why don’t we begin by taking a better look at the actual “landing site” as described in the Bluebook investigation?


Presented below is a scale drawing which amalgamates the Bluebook data regarding the physical evidence – and which can be viewed, for comparison, at these links:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696060

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696092


Image

Note that all stated distances and angular relations have been modeled with accuracy given the information contained in the official Air Force report.

The location of the four burned areas is also reproduced from the Air Force data – although the actual dimensions of these areas were not specified, and are therefore only approximated in the diagram. The “footprints” are represented near the number three “hole-in-the-ground” (O.K. on the semantics, AD? ;)) and the number three burn mark – as in the AF diagram – although some of the case photographs appear to place these closer to the number four HITG (?).

The relationship to Zamora’s perspective at the “clearing” and the apparent direction of “stimulus” departure are indicated with arrows for purposes of viewer orientation.

Note that the number four burn area appears along the approximate reported line of departure.



Previously, AD stated:

Access Denied wrote:…it should be noted the four larger “depressions” are described in a memo from Quintanilla dated 27 April 64 in the Blue Book file as being 4 x 5” not 6 x 16” as stated by the FBI …

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695311

As I previously mentioned, the dimensions given for the (burned) “impressions” in Quintanilla’s memo (on p. 19 and again on p. 21 on Footnote) is 4” x 5” and the depressions in the photographs (with the rocks piled around) appear much larger, more circular than rectangular, and not burned? Also, where are these three circular marks Byrnes mentions?


My reading of the P.19 and P. 21 documents appears to suggest that Quintanilla’s memo was a fifth hand preliminary report (on April 26th – his very first knowledge of the incident as relayed to him by others…) of the incident to Colonel Jonckheere.

The page 21 OD log / summary describes the same chain of preliminary information passing from the FBI, to Colonel King (CIC Albuquerque), to captain Cuny (“1005th Special Investigations Group”, or 1006th?), to Major Sameshima (OD at FTD), which is then presented fifth-hand from Quintanilla to Colonel Jonckheere.


Given the preliminary nature of the information, and the extended chain (the “telephone” game – remember? ;)) of provenance, it would not surprise me that the FBI was reported to have described 4” x 5” impressions to Colonel King, while Special Agent in Charge Byrnes noted the 6” x 16” dimensions in his field report of the investigation.


In government speak, that’s commonly called a SNAFU. :)


SNAFUs aside however, I’ll concur that a degree of ambiguity exists in these two documents, but almost all of the other accounts from different sources all suggest that the four larger HsITG were trapezoidal in layout, “rectangular” in aspect, and greater than or equal to 12 inches (or 16 inches) in length.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695222

(Sgt. Chavez) arrived at the point where Sgt. Zamora was parked about three minutes after the object had disappeared. Sgt. Zamora was pale and upset at what he had witnessed.

Sgt. Chavez was skeptical of the situation and proceeded to where Zamora had found the object. Here he found the marks and burns.

Smoke appeared to be coming from a bush which was burned but no flame or coals were visible. Sgt. Chavez broke a limb from the bush and it was cold to the touch.

The marks were fresh and no other marks were in the area.

Diagonals of the four impressions intersect in a perpendicular and the major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.


Sgt Chavez secured the area and contacted local military authorities. This resulted in the investigation of the sighting.



http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697283

Zamora said the mysterious object was round and about as tall as a car. It was shiny and stood on four girder-like legs. But when he moved closer to the object at dusk Friday, all he found were four indentations in the ground and scorched grass and bushes. Zamora told Sgt. Sam Chavez of the New Mexico State Police. They took six other men to the spot and found four indentations, 14 inches long and six inches wide.



http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697855

From the El Defensor Chieftain , article page 3:

The holes were shallow, about a foot long by six inches wide. They did not appear to have been made by an object striking the earth with great force, but by an object of considerable weight settling to earth at slow speed and not moving after touching the ground.


Presumably, this account was confirmed by Lewis A Reddell, publisher of the El Defensor Chieftain , when he visited the site in person:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8697817

{Photograph of Lewis A. Reddell (publisher) at site with Sgt. Chavez.}



~ And then again – of course – there is (FBI) SAC Byrnes’ field report that describes the 6” x 16” dimensions… ;)




But what of the Bluebook photographs, themselves? Were those “holes” really round, or were they vaguely (?) rectangular, after all?

On second glance, this HITG might (?) be further argued to have been more “rectangular” than “circular” in shape, perhaps?

Image


Additionally, in this photograph, we see Zamora kneeling by one of the HsITG and using his outstretched hand as a rough unit of measurement for the camera.

Image

Judging from this perspective, the HITG duly appears to be at least twice the length of Zamora’s hand, and thereby notably consistent with the commonly reported 12 to 16 inches.




~ So what again of the Quintanilla document – and the OD report – that describes 4” x 5” impressions that were reportedly burned? Where could the confusion (?) over the 4” x 5” figure have originated from?


From my reading of this document:

Image

…it appears that a more definite correlation may be established for these markings if they are interpreted to represent the “footprints” which were reportedly observed in the vicinity of the number three burn (or HITG #4?) – thereby (possibly?) explaining the reason that they were described to be burned?

According to the referenced diagram, the “footprints” were clearly (?) measured as approximately four to five inches in dimension.


~ As for Agent Byrnes’ recorded observation of three additional (?) circular marks, it is unclear to me exactly what he might have been referencing, although his description of “ …three circular marks in the earth which were smooth, approximately four inches in diameter and penetrated in the sandy earth approximately one-eighth of an inch as if a jar lid had been gently pushed into the sand” reads much (?) like the “footprints” information, to my perception.



Access Denied wrote:I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) the measurements given in the report were taken in the dark using flashlights by Holder and Byrnes with the assistance of Officers Zamora and Katlaff and Bill Pyland from the Socorro Police Department who were also present? Or was it the next day after they had supposedly (?) been disturbed? Presumably the polaroids taken by Officer Chavez of the State Police were taken shortly after the incident occurred (and if so which ones?) while others were taken the next day (?) or on the day after (?) when Lt. Moody and Major Conner from KAFB arrived?

Any clarification (specifics) you could give on these issues would be greatly appreciated. :D


Actually, I would appreciate further clarification, myself. But Chavez is reported to have discovered the four rectangular HsITG as soon as he arrived on the scene.


http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696280

From TSgt. Moody:

Sgt. Chavez then went to the area where the craft or thing was supposedly sighted and found four fresh indentations in the ground and several charred or burned bushes. …Sgt. Chavez contacted the FBI, who in turn contacted White Sands…



http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695222

(Sgt. Chavez) arrived at the point where Sgt. Zamora was parked about three minutes after the object had disappeared. Sgt. Zamora was pale and upset at what he had witnessed.

Sgt. Chavez was skeptical of the situation and proceeded to where Zamora had found the object. Here he found the marks and burns.

Smoke appeared to be coming from a bush which was burned but no flame or coals were visible. Sgt. Chavez broke a limb from the bush and it was cold to the touch.

The marks were fresh and no other marks were in the area.

Diagonals of the four impressions intersect in a perpendicular and the major distance seems to be approximately 13 ft.

Sgt Chavez secured the area and contacted local military authorities. This resulted in the investigation of the sighting.



Sgt. Chavez secured the area and made an investigation of the ground surrounding the scene. He determined that the only tire marks were those of Patrolman Zamora’s vehicle and the State Police car and found no prints or track activity of any kind other than that noted in the FBI report.

Further, he stated that the marks were definitely “fresh”…



http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696424

Moody:

I questioned Mr. Art Burns (sic) of the FBI, and several others who had been on the site within the first hours after the sighting as to the alleged freshness of the tracks. They were all of the opinion that the tracks were, indeed, fresh. Although Zamora was the only witness to the actual sighting, nine people in all saw the markings. Altogether nine people saw the markings within hours of the sighting and before the hourds (sic) of curiosity seekers descended upon the place the following day.


And:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696297

Moody:

Sgt. Chavez took Polaroid pictures of the holes and area. They are available to us.


Perhaps these pictures were taken during the noted “investigation of the ground surrounding the scene” that Chavez performed (apparently?) before either the FBI or the Army arrived?


Then again, a “state Trooper” accompanying Sgt. Chavez to / at the scene was noted to have taken “slides”…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8696092/#8696309

Included in Major Connor’s IR as attachments will be the FBI report, Captain holder’s report, photos of the area, and specific slides taken that evening by a state Trooper accompanying Sgt. Chavez to the scene.


{Emphasis added.}

…which were described to have been taken on the evening of the event (?).


Logically considered, however – if there was any discrepancy between the Polaroids that Chavez allegedly took (as he secured the “site” waiting for the FBI and the Army to arrive?) and the photos that were contained in the Bluebook file, then I would fully expect that such a major discrepancy would have been significantly noted by the Bluebook investigators and confirmed with Chavez in further interviews (?).

There is – in the official record – no apparent evidence that this line of interest ever developed, as Hynek apparently returned to Socorro some time later and re-interviewed Chavez and Zamora, I think?


According to TSgt. Moody, Polaroids of the four HsITG allegedly taken by Chavez were available to the Bluebook investigation and should logically (?) have been cross-checked against the official photographs in due course.

That no further mention of this is offered in the official record suggests to me that there was likely (?) no significant difference between the two sets of images. Given the lack of any documented exception, such cross-correlation would seem logical and reasonable to assume (?). But of course, I could be wrong.


~ I further doubt, however, that Chavez would have allowed the HITG evidence to be adulterated after the arrival of the Army, and not to have made any further mention of such an overt act that he was arguably (?) likely to have taken direct notice of.

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694951

The area was secured by Sgt. Chavez, and the Commanding Officer, Captain Holder, of the Stallion Site at White Sands notified. Captain Holder conducted an initial investigation of the sighting and obtained samples of the charred areas and dirt surrounding the markings left by the UFO.


This document also states:

Information obtained during this investigation revealed that the sighting was legitimate and there was no indication that a hoax was being perpetrated.



~ Adulteration, or hoaxing, of the Socorro physical evidence is an extraordinary claim, in my opinion, and duly requires an extraordinary proof, if it is to rise beyond the level of unfounded speculation and become substantially relevant to this analysis.

For example:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695722

From Hynek:

It is Quintanilla’s and my opinion that both Chavez and FBI agent Byrnes must have been in on the hoax if we adopt the hoax hypothesis.


Therefore, to assume any sort of legerdemain on the site, without evidence (IMO), we might as well abandon the Scientific Method altogether in this discussion. :( (Nothing personal. :))


http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8695766

Again, from Hynek:

Both Quintanilla and I find it impossible to dismiss as a hoax unless we have some evidence that it was a hoax.




Access Denied wrote:OK but in my opinion the Surveyor hypothesis has not been ruled out as the source of these depressions (again not necessarily “indentations”) or by any other “evidence” for that matter presented so far. I will be looking forward to your analysis eliminating the following possibilities I believe I’ve already suggested…

1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.

4. Some/all depressions created by optional (two) wheeled landing skids or other unusual landing gear on a Bell 47G helicopter.



I’ve been looking forward to this analysis, also. :D And even though you are NOT looking forward to this test (for reasons that the RADVS radar testing profile may now suggest?)…

Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions created by Surveyor landing pads which may or may not of been present or touched the ground.


…I’m still going to DENY your request, and demonstrate this fundamental conclusion for the benefit of our audience. Scientifically speaking, it is perfectly legitimate, in my estimation, to eliminate the Surveyor landing pads completely if this elimination may be demonstrated to be possible.

So eliminated – and if proven - we can then focus our further inquiry on more relevant (?) options.



First, let us examine the plan-view of the Surveyor lander:

Image

...where we may note that the Surveyor rested on a tripod landing gear, with each of the tripod legs (gears) engineered at 120* angles to the other two.

And here are the relevant dimensions of the full-scale lander, as provided by AD:

Image



Below, I have added (in RED) the scaled plan-form of the Surveyor, its landing pads, and normal resting diameter, to the landing site diagram.

Image

As demonstrated, an attempt to correlate the Surveyor plan-form to the four main HsITG fails.


Attempting to correlate the Surveyor plan-form (hereafter; “SPF”) with HITG #1, we observe that a correlation of the Surveyor normal resting diameter (SNRD) to HITG #3 is possible, but not applicable to HsITGs #2 and/or #4. The Surveyor geometry (SG) further eliminates correlation with any HITG but #1.



In the next diagram, a correlation based on HITG #4 is attempted.

Image

As in the case of the HITG #1 attempt, correlation of the SNRD with one other HITG is possible, but the SG again rules out a positive match with any other “pad” (..though a close , but not exact, match may be made with HITG #3).



The next diagram attempts a correlation from HITG #2…

Image

…and reveals a match for neither the SPF or the SNRD.



In the next diagram, a match is attempted between the alleged Vernier engine positions on the Surveyor chassis and the three central burn areas:

Image

Though the exact dimensions of the burn areas are not specified, a loose correlation might be reasonably (?) argued from result above, but any conclusion / correlation based on the alleged firing of Vernier rockets now appears to be placed in doubt (?) by AD’s recent research:

Access Denied wrote:I have some doubt that the T-2H test article included a fully functional Surveyor descent system (e.g. three vernier engines) but I think if you go back you’ll see where I’ve alluded to that possibility and set the stage for an alternate scenario if that’s the case. My basis for that doubt mainly comes from this document…


~ Namely that the T-2H helicopter flights were intended to test the RADVS, or Radar landing avionics, for Surveyor’s intended approach to the Lunar surface…

1. The T-2H "vehicle" was an installation of the QA-I RADVS and test equipment on a helicopter to evaluate RADVS performance. (design/development phase: mid 1963; verification phase: mid 1964)

…Due to the large altitude/velocity regime of RADVS operation, a series of 18 tests were conducted using a specially modified RADVS equipped helicopter, ultimately executing a series of 53 flight profiles…

{Which is very practical to my perception – the helicopter flights would simulate a descent profile to the lunar surface from altitudes greater than the 1200ft balloon tests. -- Serp’s note :))

…designed to simulate various mission-like scenarios to the maximum extent possible. These tests were conducted at the White Sands Missile Range near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The helicopters used in the testing were equipped with a complete mock-up of the RADVS, employing a special test fixture that positioned the two antenna modules in the same relative locations and beam pattern geometry as on the actual spacecraft.


…and that this particular Spaceframe (S-8?) was NOT equipped with Vernier engines for this testing… (I think?):

The major deficiency of flight tests, as described here, is that lunar descent conditions are not realistically simulated; in particular, retro and vernier firing effects are not present. Therefore, the flight tests cannot be viewed as complete verification of RADVS' capability for controlling lunar descent. In spite of this limitation, such tests are considered as a necessity for radar design verification (p. 61)


and:

The desired flight test described in Section IV appears to have been fulfilled in the T-2H program. A small amount of additional knowledge was gained from the T-2N descent tests, but these tests were of main value to the flight control and vernier engine systems. (p. 93)


…which might indicate that the “necessity for radar design verification” referred to, above, applied only to the airborne “field” testing described, and – further – that required Vernier integration data was obtained from the balloon tests (?).


~ If so, then all of these possibilities are quickly eliminated…

Access Denied wrote:1. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by (up to) three Surveyor vernier engines firing simultaneously (or otherwise) at some fixed and/or varying distance above the surface.

2. Some/all depressions and/or burns created by Surveyor high pressure gas purge of propellant and/or pressurant (helium) through a common vent and/or one or more engine nozzles.

3. Some/all burns created by Surveyor vernier engine residual post firing propellant leakage though one or more engine nozzles.


…if the previous demonstrations have conclusively eliminated the Surveyor Geometry from correlating with the four main HsITG.


Yet again:

Access Denied wrote:…there may some doubt about all of this and if so, perhaps the Bell 47 itself was the source of the “flame” and burns (e.g. malfunctioning somehow?) and it doesn’t matter whether the T-2H had vernier engines or not.



Nevertheless, some high temperature from some source is apparently demonstrated in the burning of the indigenous Greasewood and Snakeweed at the site (which were reportedly difficult to ignite) as documented by the Bluebook investigation.


In particular, this burn area…

Image

…appears to show what has been referred to as “calcified” sand (highlighted) which would also, presumably, indicate a significant source of heat being present (?).



~ Unfortunately, however, the official investigation also determined that no evidence of chemical propellants could be found in any of the burned material…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694783

Laboratory analysis of the burned brush showed no chemicals which would indicate a type of propellant.


… but from what I understand, MMH combusts fairly completely – with only trace “droplets” being propelled in the blast stream to alight on any nearby material. ~ The smaller the engine in question (like a Vernier), though, the more droplets it appears to produce?


According to the USAF ‘Burn” diagram:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696060

No other indications of a blast - i.e. a thrust force were noted.

No other (uncertain) indentations or area disturbances were noted.




Finally, there is one more element to account for if the Surveyor theory is to be fully tested against the physical evidence.

Access Denied wrote:4. Some/all depressions created by optional (two) wheeled landing skids or other unusual landing gear on a Bell 47G helicopter.



Here, below, we observe the rough blueprint and dimensions of the Bell 47G helicopter that was utilized in the Surveyor T-2H testing:

Image


And below, again, we can observe a picture of the Bell 47G that clearly demonstrates the position of the two skid wheels (for parking and repositioning) that were commonly fitted to this model of helicopter.

Image


In the final diagram, the skid dimensions of the Bell 47G are now superimposed in blue, over the only, roughly correlated, position for the alleged Surveyor…

Image

In addition, I have tried to position the Bell 47 skids so that the alleged helicopter could have appeared as Zamora’s sketch…

Image

…is proposed by AD to have represented the front aspect of a Bell 47G.


Again, no correlation to any of the physical markings is observed, and the Bell 47G cannot be shown to have created any combination of HsITG.

Though uncertainty remains about the positioning of the RADVS “mockup” relative to the Bell 47 – and a side mount is suggested – further manipulation of the helicopter skids appears unable to create any logical correlation of the given engineering to the surface HsITG (?).


According to TSgt. Moody:

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8696458

It would appear essential that for this case to be fairly closed out – if the interpretation is that of a new device and its dimensions be shown to match the markings on the ground; that is – that the device finally selected as the culprit, be indeed capable of producing the marks observed.


~ Which returns us to the exact conundrum faced by Project Bluebook in 1964:


If the Bell 47 could NOT have created the markings – and the Surveyor could NOT have created the markings – then some other “device” must have created the markings.


Perhaps this was some sort of “unusual” landing gear designed to accommodate both the alleged helicopter and its “mockup” / instrumentation (?), but AD has already eliminated the possibility that any such trapezoidal undercarriage would have been practical, or logically reasonable to assume:

Access Denied wrote:Seems to me a non-symmetrical perpendicular trapezoidal arrangement would actually rule out the ETH since I can’t image why aliens would not recognize the sheer brilliance of using convex circular landing pads instead of rectangles for landing gear and arranged them symmetrically to distribute the vehicle’s mass equally over the planets surface as did their Earthly counterparts…



Nevertheless, such “non-symmetrical perpendicular trapezoidal arrangement” must now – indeed – be demonstrated (?) if ANY correlation between the proposed Helicopter / Surveyor combination and the physical evidence documented in the April 1964 Socorro sighting case is to be established.


According to AD…

Access Denied wrote:…I did some pretty extensive research on some other possibilities but Surveyor testing is the only one that really fits the bill in terms of the timing and technology.


…yet the physical evidence, as shown, does not appear to support this best remaining hypothesis.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the traditions of the Scientific Method, I invite any other interested researchers to re-create my cited experiments, and to either confirm or reject the above conclusions according to their best results.


…For what we have seen demonstrated is not hallucination, not speculation, not myopia, and not opinion.


It is the simple mathematics of aerospace engineering.




Though I have more helicopter-related (and other) issues to address and reply to fully, I will choose to stop here, and allow a few days for consideration.



Enjoy,

Serp :)



"I take what you love, and leave you in tears..."
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby wetsystems » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:01 am

Truly excellent analysis, Serp. Thank you.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby ryguy » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:09 am

Serp,

First of all - words can't really express how impressed I am with the wealth of information contained in that post (and the effort I'm sure that it took to put together). Quite honestly, that level of detail and effort here is astounding and humbling - it's a perfect model for analysis.

I'm still digesting - but wanted to mention that one thing that really struck me as I was reviewing each overlay, was the perfect symmetry represented in the diagram where you overlayed the Bell 47 skids within the 3 footprints.

The skids themselves clearly couldn't have made the 3 footprints. One side-note - I couldn't help notice that I don't think you actually placed the helicopter in a direction directly facing the car? Not that it would really have mattered - the skids alone obviously didn't make the 3 footprints. I could be wrong on the direction, maybe I misinterpreted.

Did you use the exact dimensions of the Bell 47 skids within that diagram, and if so - did you notice the almost perfect symmetry within the circle created by the landing pads? And if so - what do you think of that? I find it fascinating....

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:30 am

Well, thanks guys. :) That was a lot of fun to write up.


ryguy wrote:I'm still digesting - but wanted to mention that one thing that really struck me as I was reviewing each overlay, was the perfect symmetry represented in the diagram where you overlayed the Bell 47 skids within the 3 footprints.


Yeah, that was an interesting coincidence that the rectangular dimensions of the Bell 47G fit so nicely inside the circular Surveyor Normal Resting Diameter. :shock:

I'm not sure what it might mean.... other than the Bell and Hughes engineers having the same general dimensions in their heads?


Anyone else?


ryguy wrote:The skids themselves clearly couldn't have made the 3 footprints. One side-note - I couldn't help notice that I don't think you actually placed the helicopter in a direction directly facing the car? Not that it would really have mattered - the skids alone obviously didn't make the 3 footprints. I could be wrong on the direction, maybe I misinterpreted.


Nice observation, Ry. :)

In truth, that was a matter of interpolation. If I remember correctly, Zamora claimed to have been viewing the "object" from the "side" when he got close to it? I'll have to double check that.

In effect, I compromised. :)

My positioning centered on the best apparent correlation of the Surveyor Vernier engines (if present?) to the burned areas, combined with the idea that the two nearest Surveyor landing legs (if present?) would have formed the two stick-like projections underneath the "object", if you see what I'm thinking?

My general assumption mounts the helicopter OVER the Surveyor article, but that was because the best overall "fit" against the four HsITG was from the "site" center.


ryguy wrote:Did you use the exact dimensions of the Bell 47 skids within that diagram, and if so - did you notice the almost perfect symmetry within the circle created by the 3 landing pads? And if so - what do you think of that? I find it fascinating....


With the exception of some minor simplification toward the rear of the skid section, the answer is YES. In my original drawing (before converting formats) the skids appeared closer to three or four inches in thickness, but other than that, the representation is exact down to the decimals.


Serp :)
Last edited by Serpentime on Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:35 am

Nice work Serp. Unfortunately it appears you may have prematurely jumped to a conclusion by choosing not to test certain aspects of my hypothesis in favor of analyzing assumptions that had already been rejected and also by misrepresenting some of the evidence I presented and my position on it. Would you like me to point out these errors in your analysis now or were you planning on addressing this in future “parts”?
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:39 am

Yes. By all means, please clarify. :)

Serp :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby wetsystems » Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:22 pm

Serp,

I'm dumbfounded by the degree of energy that's been expended in destroying a theoretical framework that is so patently disingenuous and ridiculous. But damn it's a pleasure to watch you do it!

You're good!

Best,

Wetsystems
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby Access Denied » Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:15 pm

Serpentime wrote:Yes. By all means, please clarify. :)


OK but first, I would like to thank you (Serp) for your tremendous effort. If any progress is going to be made at this late date (I would *love* to be able question everyone who was there!) on solving this case, this is definitely the way to do it.

For example, early in this thread, I made the following statement after having reviewed the actual Blue Book documentation myself for the first time…

Access Denied wrote:Actually, assuming the following widely circulated diagram for example is an accurate representation of the physical evidence to be found at the scene (which in itself is an erroneous assumption as I hope to demonstrate)…

Image

…I think selecting a non-ET hypothesis *period* is scientifically justified. :) In fact I strongly concur with the official ATIC Form 329 filed by Project Blue Book on the case…

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694623

Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data.

The only question in my mind is why did this effort fail? I see two possibilities, not enough effort was made and/or *somebody* went out of their way to cover it up. I think there’s enough evidence to conclude it was a little of both.

…and now, thanks to your effort, we have a more accurate representation that shows that the widely circulated diagram above is indeed inaccurate and misleading. I’m particularly impressed by the technique you used to place the burn marks based on the dimensions given. That one had me scratching my head at first when I was creating my own diagram… duh scribe some arcs. :)

I believe your diagram showing that there were actually *three* burn marks in the “center” of the “landing” site instead of one, which by virtue of it’s “rough” correlation (your words) with the placement of Surveyor’s vernier engines, a vehicle (in some form) that we now know *was* being tested in the area on that day, brings us one step closer to placing, as the Air Force believed, a “Lunar module type configuration” at the site.

More to follow. In the meantime have a great weekend (tomorrow is Labor Day here in the States) and I encourage others to continue thinking “outside the box” as it were…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Serpentime » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:43 am

wetsystems wrote:I'm dumbfounded by the degree of energy that's been expended in destroying a theoretical framework that is so patently disingenuous and ridiculous. But damn it's a pleasure to watch you do it!



Access Denied wrote:OK but first, I would like to thank you (Serp) for your tremendous effort. If any progress is going to be made at this late date (I would *love* to be able question everyone who was there!) on solving this case, this is definitely the way to do it.


You're very kind, guys. :)

As I've probably expressed somewhere before, I usually only debate this stuff as a public service to others. But if my work (ROTFL) gives someone else out there - somewhere - something new to think about, then I figure that it was probably worth the effort? :)

Personally, I've been learning a lot of new things, myself. :D

Then again, if any UFO case deserves the sort of renewed critical examination that RU has been offering in this thread, it might well, indeed, be the infamous Socorro "Landing" case.


Personally speaking, I too, would have appreciated the opportunity that Moody, Quintanilla, Hynek, and others, were given to investigate this case, firsthand, in 1964 - and their important ability to speak with those involved and draw firsthand conclusions from the interviews. Additionally, it would have been very interesting (IMO) to understand the Office of the President's fiat / clout / access to probe the nature of this "incident" through other channels, as well.

http://www.footnote.com/image/8694587/#8694656

The same might be said for various Congressional Committees, even in closed session?



Perhaps what was most frustrating to the Air Force about the Socorro case, in my opinion, was the fact that - unlike many ambiguous UFO reports that were typically labeled "unknown" - this case SHOULD have been solvable.

The data and the means appeared both reasonable, and within reach.


...And yet Socorro was not solved, despite the national spotlight.



Happy Labor Day,

Serp :)



P.S. - AD, don't you mean "outside the trapezoid"?


ROTFL :)
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby ryguy » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:16 pm

I'm very much looking forward to AD's rebuttal.

I find the statement on the official ATIC Form 329 to be intriguing... "Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."

And I agree strongly with what Serp's stated above - the case appears to be solvable, assuming the investigators were provided 100% cooperation from everyone involved.

AD wrote:
The only question in my mind is why did this effort fail? I see two possibilities, not enough effort was made and/or *somebody* went out of their way to cover it up. I think there’s enough evidence to conclude it was a little of both.


I agree with that as well...why did the effort fail?

Also, on another note, I just wanted to mention that the viewcount of this thread is quickly approaching 10,000 - in record time compared to threads in other forums such as Serpo and UFO's. Obviously there are many people who have a strong interest in the analysis you guys have conducted here.

Cheers,
-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Serpentime » Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:29 am

ryguy wrote:I'm very much looking forward to AD's rebuttal.


Yes. I'd be pleased to read his critique, also - if he desires? :)

If not, I'll continue with Part 2 of my presentation, shortly.


ryguy wrote:I find the statement on the official ATIC Form 329 to be intriguing... "Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."


"Initially believed" creates the foundation for Quintanilla's broad hypothesis as soon as he first heard of the case:

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/quintanilla.pdf

Hector Quintanilla wrote:I was determined to solve the case and come hell or high water I was going to find the vehicle or the stimulus. I decided that it was imperative for me to talk to the Base Commander at Holloman AFB.

I wanted to interview the Base Commander at length about special activities from his base. I needed help to pull this off, so I called Lt. Col. Maston Jacks at SAFOI. I told him what I wanted to do and he asked, “Do you think it will do any good?”

I replied, “God damned it Maston, if there is an answer to this case it has to be in some hanger at Holloman”.


{Emphasis added}

The "Lunar Module" refinement of the hypothesis apparently came following Quintanilla's unsuccessful trip to Holloman / White Sands Missile Range:

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/quintanilla.pdf

Hector Quintanilla wrote:On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle? I knew that some research had been done at Wright-Patterson; so as soon as I got back I asked for some briefings.

The briefings were extremely informative, but the Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964. I got the names of the companies that were doing research in this field and I started writing letters. The companies were most cooperative, but their answers were all negative.



ryguy wrote:And I agree strongly with what Serp's stated above - the case appears to be solvable, assuming the investigators were provided 100% cooperation from everyone involved.

AD wrote:
The only question in my mind is why did this effort fail? I see two possibilities, not enough effort was made and/or *somebody* went out of their way to cover it up. I think there’s enough evidence to conclude it was a little of both.


I agree with that as well...why did the effort fail?


In my opinion, this is a key question - though I'm not sure that I agree with AD's conclusion. I plan to examine this matter in greater detail shortly. :)


For example:

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/quintanilla.pdf

Yet Quintanilla didn’t believe in any kind of conspiracy behind his back:

“Everybody gave me the fullest cooperation, nobody refused, from the high level agencies to top laboratories to which I requested for help.”


{Emphasis added}



Serp
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Access Denied » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:52 am

ryguy wrote:I'm very much looking forward to AD's rebuttal.

Thanks Ry, I’m working on it. Hopefully it will be worth the wait. :)

ryguy wrote:I find the statement on the official ATIC Form 329 to be intriguing... "Initially believed to be observation of Lunar module type configuration. Effort to date cannot place vehicle at site. Case carried as UNIDENTIFIED pending additional data."

Me too… not what I’d expect had the evidence at hand suggested something else… then again maybe that was the point. ;)

ryguy wrote:And I agree strongly with what Serp's stated above - the case appears to be solvable, assuming the investigators were provided 100% cooperation from everyone involved.

Don’t let Serp fool you, he clearly doesn’t believe this case is solvable, at least not in terms of an Earthly explanation, as evidenced by his continuous (and dare I say mind numbing) parroting of the statements made by the various Blue Book investigators. :)

I believe if any progress can be made at this point the key is identifying what assumptions have been made (or we’ve been led to believe as the case may be) and then systematically reevaluating those assumptions and rejecting them as necessary in order to gain new insight.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Access Denied » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:01 am

Hector Quintanilla wrote:The briefings were extremely informative, but the Lunar Landers were not operational in April 1964.

Obviously he attended the wrong Lunar Lander briefings. :D
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Best Evidence

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron