The Evidentiary Thread (Exhibits, Documentation, Testimony)

Hard to debunk

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby wetsystems » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:45 pm

”No serious researcher would contend that a photograph is of any value whatsoever in establishing the existence of an extraordinary object unless it is solidly corroborated by the testimony of one or more witnesses.”

Well- so much for the Hubble. And for the moon landings too!

Great post, Serp.

That an observation is counter intuitive or contrary to conventional understanding in no way invalidates it. (Einsteinian Relativity and Quantum Theory come to mind.) Condon fell into this error as did Phil Klass- error that has condemned them to infamy. Gratuitous debunkery is the last refuge of bad science.
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 Serpentime » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:37 am

Thanks, Toon. :)


I think you've offered a few provocative observations of your own, there.

As for myself, I'm a great admirer of Science for the sake of science, but science as an expression of politics is counter-intuitive, in my opinion.


But that's just my opinion.


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 » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:34 am

wetsystems wrote:”No serious researcher would contend that a photograph is of any value whatsoever in establishing the existence of an extraordinary object unless it is solidly corroborated by the testimony of one or more witnesses.”

Well- so much for the Hubble. And for the moon landings too!

LOL but of course comparing photographic data of conventional objects (I think it’s safe to say relatively few people on the planet would deny the existence of the moon and heavens) obtained under controlled conditions (as in the methods to be used were subject to extensive peer review and a consensus was reached prior to obtaining it) to your typical “UFO” photograph hardly seems reasonable.

wetsystems wrote:Great post, Serp.

Absolutely, and if this keeps up, I could end up single before I finish a proper response. :)

[catching up…]

Serpentime wrote:
Access Denied wrote:I’m like who’s Axl???

D'oh!!!

I've always felt that it hurts to go home alone... :(

{...Just kidding. 8)}

I’d love to tell you what my answer to the other two questions were but I’m saving that for my next book “Starving Artists I: Rock Stars and the Women Who Feed Them”. I envision it as a companion piece to Penelope Spheeris’ “The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years”. 8)

Serpentime wrote:Wow. You got Welcome(d) to the Jungle and didn't even realize it...

~ It must have been some trip (after the fact...) to have had Axl buy you a drink and then sit there with him having a normal, cool, convo. Good for you. :)

Yeah well at that point he had only just started drinking. :lol:

Serpentime wrote:As for me, I used to have girls ask me (seriously): "Do you like Axl Rose?? - to which I got in the habit of answering: "I dunno. I've never met him." LOL

Well, if the question ever comes up again you could say you’ve heard that he knows surprisingly more about guitars then you’d think a front man would and leave it at that. :)

Serpentime wrote:~ Where the F-~ were you?? ROTFL

At the Rainbow? :) Say, wanna hear about the time Sade introduced me to Chrissie Hynde who went back home to England with my demo tape and I never heard from again? :x

Serpentime wrote:I figured they'd probaly be too "important" to come inside, but I guess I found out the hard way that I was mistaken... LOL

All around, they seemed like pretty cool guys. :)

I bet, I don’t think I would have been as cool about it as you though. I’d be asking Geddy all kinds of stupid tech questions like whether he used the OB-Xa or Jupiter-8 for the synth line in “Tom Sawyer”. :D

Serpentime wrote:Don't worry. Family first, though. :)

Yes, must keep my priorities straight. (see above)

Great post Serp! Now you've got me thinking twice about some of this crazy stuff again too...
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 » Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:13 am

Access Denied wrote:Great post Serp! Now you've got me thinking twice about some of this crazy stuff again too...

Oops!

[insert ”Momentary Lack of Reason” here]

LOL you almost had me going there Serp but I woke up this morning with the phrase ”context and timing” stuck in my head for some reason (hmm… Quintanilla’s attitude kind of smells like a downward directed cover up he didn’t like… of what though???) and then it hit me… like a two ton heavy thing… Space Race!

Translation: OPSEC (gotta keep ‘em guessing!)

[insert cries of disbelief from the peanut gallery here]

Follow me here…

Eisenhower establishes NASA with the "National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958" for the greater good of mankind...

"DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

(b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e)."


Then on his way out he issues what, at least in part, could be interpreted as a warning that not everybody agrees with relinquishing primary use of the ultimate strategic “high ground" to a civilian agency…

”In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
Farewell Speech
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
The White House
January 16, 1961

Kennedy then takes over and reaffirms the “peaceful use” and "open door" policy wrt space access and related technologies with this famous speech…

“We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.”
Moon Speech
President John F. Kennedy
Rice Stadium
September 12, 1962

Not so fast. One year later Kennedy is 86ed [insert leadership vacuum here] and the next year after that Lonnie Zamora sees an “alien” spaceship land in the New Mexico desert and it’s labeled as “unexplained” by ATIC’s public front Project Blue Book with no mention whatsoever (?) of the most likely suspect… hmm. :?:

[insert various misguided conspiracy theories as a result here]

Voilà … Cold War + Space Race + National Security Interests + Interagency Intelligence Rivalry – Aliens = Disclosure Copyright © 2007 Access Denied/GodTom Productions 8)

Image

Although not conclusive, I completely forgot about Dave Thomas' theory (which ironically involves our good friend Dr. Moore again LOL)...

The Socorro, NM UFO - Explained?
http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm

A Different Angle on the Socorro UFO of 1964 (as it appeared in Skeptical Inquirer)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_76881155

e.g. I wonder how many poor unsuspecting New Mexicans may have seen these other “flying saucers” and freaked out too?

Image
The aeroshell of a NASA Voyager-Mars space probe just prior to launch.

Image
Following a supersonic test flight in 1972, a Viking space probe awaits recovery at White Sands Missile Range.

i.e.

Serpentime wrote:Occam’s Razor at it’s finest! :D


Whew, OK back to reality. :)

Anyway, stay tuned for more commentary but until then Tim Printy offers a good summary of the McMinville, Oregon photos (correction truck mirror, not train wheel LOL) and the Great Falls, Montana film and includes some more points I missed to mull over...

Can you fool all the UFOlogists all of the time?
http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhomepage/hoax.html

And let’s not forget the fairly sound advice of everybody's favorite [shudder] debunker...

Philip Klass's 10 principles for investigating UFOs
http://members.aol.com/Tprinty/Klass.html

Shame on me. (the "gratuitous debunker" that I am!) :D

AD
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 » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:13 am

Access Denied wrote: Voilà … Cold War + Space Race + National Security Interests + Interagency Intelligence Rivalry – Aliens = Disclosure Copyright © 2007 Access Denied/GodTom Productions 8)


Most excellent, AD. :) (Wyld Stallyns Rulz!!)

It would appear that you have observed the “field” of the alleged phenomenon (i.e parameters related to the Socorro “sighting”) and constructed a testable hypothesis.

This is most Scientific! :D


For effective purposes – and with your permission, of course – may we consider said hypothesis to further predict that the scheduled Surveyor test flight of April 24, 1964 will provide the most consistent explanation for the alleged Socorro “sighting” as reported by Lonnie Zamora?

Access Denied wrote:The Socorro, NM UFO - Explained?

http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm


A Different Angle on the Socorro UFO of 1964 (as it appeared in Skeptical Inquirer)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_76881155


In addition, may we also assume that said theory postulates that the National Security aspects of the U.S. – Soviet “Space Race” may account for Major Quintanilla’s attitude toward the case and his “paraphrenic” (LOL) statements regarding Lonnie Zamora?


~ Or, as you described it:

Access Denied wrote:hmm… Quintanilla’s attitude kind of smells like a downward directed cover up he didn’t like… of what though???) and then it hit me… like a two ton heavy thing… Space Race!



If this understanding is consistent (?), and if there are no other objections, might we then also proceed to test the predictions of this hypothesis (not yet an “explanation” :)) against the alleged witness, documentary, and physical, evidence of the case as stipulated by the Scientific Method?


To begin with, why not start by examining Major Quintanilla’s statements in context? Perhaps the specific timing of those statements might better assist us in understanding his attitude?


While this official statement to CIA was made in the fall of 1966:

"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area.

"He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic."


this account was included in Quintanilla’s unpublished (and until recently, private, I believe?) 1975 memoirs:

I was determined to solve the case and come hell or high water I was going to find the vehicle or the stimulus.

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

…I went from one end of the base to the other. I spent four days talking to everybody I could and spent almost a whole day with the down-range controllers at the White Sands Missile Range. I left Holloman dejected and convinced that the answer to Zamora’s experience did not originate and terminate at that base.

…On my way back to Wright-Patterson, I hit upon an idea. Why not a lunar landing vehicle?

…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.

…It was now time for me to pass judgment on the case after a careful review of all the information at hand. I hate to use the word “judgment”, but that is exactly what it boils down to.

…I labeled the case “Unidentified” and the UFO buffs and hobby clubs had themselves a field day. According to them, here was proof that our beloved planet had been visited by an extraterrestrial vehicle. Although I labeled the case “Unidentified” I’ve never been satisfied with that classification.

…so the solution to this case could very well be lying dormant in Lonnie Zamora’s head
.


…which – given the nine year time interval for “reflection” – suggests to me (in my estimation :)) that Major Quintanilla was more frustrated over his inability to reconcile the established facts of the case with his personal “preferences”, than he was about being forced to file a false classified report with CIA in 1966. On the other hand, Quintanilla’s personal (professional?) frustration with having to admit Socorro as a scientific “unknown” to CIA, and his USAF superiors, might have “ate” at his soul for many years – only appearing as angst in his private papers some years later – like the regrets of some UFOlogical Captain Ahab… LOL

Perhaps it is not beyond reason – then – to suggest that Quintanilla’s personal analysis of the Socorro case scientifically informed him that without a solution from “some hangar at Holloman”, the comprehensive data-set that he was forced to confront might lead only to an extraordinary answer?? And in that case, might it also be reasonable to conclude that Major Quintanilla might have been simply unable to accept such “uncomfortable” logic, particularly when it was so much more comforting to dismiss the (very unambiguous) testimony of an otherwise credible witness?


~ After all, as we know, are eyewitnesses not typically subject to (gross?) error? ;)



According to Quintanilla, he (like Ahab :)) spent considerable effort over multiple days attempting to learn anything from anyone who was in any way involved with anything (apparently?) happening at Holloman / White Sands:

…I went from one end of the base to the other. I spent four days talking to everybody I could and spent almost a whole day with the down-range controllers at the White Sands Missile Range. I left Holloman dejected and convinced that the answer to Zamora’s experience did not originate and terminate at that base.


…but could find no evidence that ANY U.S. Government aerospace activities correlated with the alleged occurrence at Socorro.

In particular, note carefully that Quintanilla’s inquiry paid careful and extended attention to the possibility that activities at WSMR could logically account for the Zamora’s report, but that the results of this “test” proved negative.


According to Quintanilla’s memoirs:

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


Which would apparently imply – if said hypothesis is to “test” positive – that someone at WSMR must have concealed (routine?) knowledge from Quintanilla in an attempt to protect the classified (?) status of the Surveyor test?


Yet, was the Surveyor test classified at all?

And if so, why would Quintanilla’s clearance not authorize him to review such classified information, if a fundamental part of his tasking was to sort out U.S. aerospace testing as relevant intelligence data in the UFOB field?

Why create and allow such a controversy to continue?


Therefore, is it really plausible to believe that NASA (?) would expose the USAF to a dreaded Congressional inquiry in an attempt to “protect” a classified (?) project - which Congress likely knew about anyway (…in order to fund it, for example)?

And while Quintanilla might (hypothetically) have been forced to “lie” to the public (as NICAP would like to think?), it seems difficult to believe that he would “lie” to CIA in a classified report two years later… (especially after the Surveyor missions had begun?)


Though it is only my opinion, the relevant data appears to argue against a “cover-up” of the Surveyor test being perpetrated by Major Quintanilla, or in my opinion, a “cover-up” being “forced” on him by his superiors. Logic and Quintanilla’s own statements suggest that if Surveyor was – indeed – responsible for the “sighting”, that he should have been reasonably able to ascertain this information.


But – despite his best efforts, and wishes – he could not do so. :(



~ Rationally speaking, the rationale for a Surveyor “cover-up” would ultimately be predicated upon the assumption that the Surveyor test WAS – in fact – responsible for the Socorro sighting, in the first place.

To test this part of the hypothesis, perhaps we can begin by comparing the well-documented physical metrics of the Surveyor platform with the physical evidence that was scientifically documented at the “site” of the “incident”?


Again, according to the filed report of the Albuquerque FBI office:

Special Agent Byrnes noted four indentations in the rough ground at the “site” of the object described by Officer Zamora. These depressions appeared regular in shape, approximately sixteen by six inches rectangular. Each depression seemed to have been made by an object going into the earth at an angle from a center line. Each depression was approximately two inches deep and pushed some earth to the far side.

Inside the four depressions were three burned patches of clumps of grass. Other clumps of grass appeared not to be disturbed. One burned area was outside the four depressions.

There were 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 gently been pushed into the sand.


and, that…

…four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas and four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in rectangular shaped pattern averaging about twelve feet apart


…were duly observed by the first two back-up officers to arrive on the scene – Sergeant M.S. Chavez of the New Mexico State Police, and Socorro Deputy Sheriff James Luckie.


Yet when we view the Surveyor lander itself, we readily (?) observe that only three landing legs supported the platform:

Image

…which is inconsistent with the physical evidence of four “impressions” left at the “site”.

And if we check the physical dimensions of those gears against the official technical specifications at Boeing.com, we see that the given dimensions of 14.08 feet in total width do NOT match the 12 foot measurements obtained on the scene.


Neither do the observations of:

These depressions appeared regular in shape, approximately sixteen by six inches rectangular.


or

…four small irregularly shaped smouldering (sic) areas and four regular depressed areas approximately sixteen by six inches in rectangular shaped pattern…


…correspond with the clearly circular plan forms of the Surveyor “foot pads”.

Image

Further again, it was also suggested by the USAF investigators, that the total weight of the object that made the “impressions” would likely have been several tons. But again, the official specifications tell us that Surveyor only weighed 2,283 pounds.


~ For these reasons I believe that the postulated correlation of Surveyor to the alleged “vehicle” apparently observed in the Socorro “sighting” case is scientifically weak (IMO) when compared to, and tested against, the available physical evidence.


In addition, the description of the alleged “object” as stated by the witness:

Object was oval, in shape. It was smooth--no windows or doors. As roar started, it was still on or near ground. Noted red lettering of some type (see illustration). Insignia was about 2 1/2' high and about 2' wide I guess. Was in middle of object. . .Object still like aluminum-white.


and...

Object was like aluminum--it was whitish against the mesa background, but not chrome. Seemed like O in shape and I at first glance took it to be overturned white car.


…which he agreed may be accurately represented by this image:

Image

…bears little physical resemblance (IMO) to Surveyor:

Image

…which was certainly not capable of departing the area in the manner:

....Object was traveling very fast. It seemed to rise up, and take off immediately across country.


as described by the witness.



In an August 22, 2006 e-mail, David Rudiak further responded to the Surveyor / helicopter hypothesis:

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:49:05 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:21:27 -0400
Subject: Re: UFOs Or Not? - Rudiak


>From: Hollis Kimball <Choprgo.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:08:03 EDT
>Subject: Re: UFOs Or Not?

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:43:38 +0100
>>Subject: Re: UFOs or Not?

>>And we're still waiting for those "_real_ unexplained cases" you
>>wanted to talk about Hollis. Are you getting cold feet, or just
>>being coy with us?

>No, I'm not getting 'cold feet', nor am I being coy be any
>means. My original post was a question regarding possible_real_
>cases, such as some of the historic 'unknowns' Blue Book ones,
>or whatever. Of course, if further investigation results in
>nothing to add, pro or con, then simply dead-file the case as
>'Unknown'. Regarding the Socorro case:

>I see two probabilities. Either it was an alien spacecraft flown
>by two alien beings in white coveralls, or:

>Considering all the available reported information, it was
>simply an experimental test flight of a early prototype Lunar
>Survey landing craft, using a Hughes Model 369 (OH-6 Cayuse),
>aka the 'Flying Egg', helicopter as the carrier, which was flown
>by a Hughes Aircraft Company (Culver City, CA) test pilot, along
>with a Flight Test Engineer, which is the usual procedure. As
>you all know, the Lunar craft was unable to lift it's own weight
>in Earth's gravity, hence the helicopter requirement.

Well, now I know Don Ledger was right. The debunkers are playing
tag team again and "Hollis Kimball" has just come off the bench
as a summertime replacement.

Here's a picture of Mr. Kimball's so-called "Flying Egg"
helicopter:

http://tinyurl.com/fhue7

Also check out the Wikipedia article, which includes history &
performance details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-6

The H-6 looks remarkably like... a helicopter. Only somebody
totally ignorant of the Socorro case details (or a debunker)
would think that this helicopter with clear plexiglass bubble,
big rotor on top, tail with tail rotor, and small parallel
landing gear bore any resemblance to the actual white oval
Lonnie Zamora described.

Or was it the "early prototype Lunar Survey landing craft" that
was Zamora's large white oval sitting on the ground, while
Zamora totally missed seeing the helicopter hovering above? If
that's the case, then how did the helicopter pilot and flight
test engineer in their white coveralls get down on the ground
next to the "Lunar Surveyor" to be seen by Zamora? Where was the
double parallel track of the helicopter landing gear in addition
to the four landing pad impressions left behind by the "Lunar
Surveyor"? Like most debunkers, Mr. Kimball seems to want to
have it both ways.

I also vaguely recall that helicopters make a tremendous amount
of noise, create a strong downdraft, etc. None of this was
reported by Zamora. He got within about 50 feet of the craft
reporting no noise or downdraft (or seeing any support cable).
Then he heard a tremendous noise and saw what looked like a
flame shooting down, which burned the ground and cut a mesquite
bush cleanly in half. Oh I see, this was the test "Lunar
Surveyor" blasting off. Then it went dead silent. Oh right, this
was nothing but a test and the "Lunar Surveyor" cut its engine.
But wait, wasn't a noisy helicopter still supporting it from
above? Where did that noise go?

Then Zamora reported his egg-shaped object accelerating and
rapidly disappearing in the distance over the mountains about 6
miles away, probably all within about 20 seconds. Work out the
average speed to cover that distance in such a short period of
time and it's supersonic. That's one fast "helicopter" carrier.

Here's another problem. A small helicopter like this can't lift
all that much weight. (According to the Wikipedia article, the
maximum was about 1500 pounds.) Besides lifting a crew of two,
the helicopter was also supposed to be carrying a white oval
object which by Zamora's description and by the landing pad
impression left behind must have been at least 15 feet in
length. If it was also a "lunar surveyor" complete with test
rocket engine and fuel, that's quite a bit of weight, shall we
estimate at least equal to a car or at least a ton? (A very
conservative number. According to the depth of the landing pad
impressions in the hard soil, calculations actually placed the
Socorro object weight at several tons.) How was the "helicopter"
supposed to lift that?

>The landing test area selected for that flight was as similar to
>the moon's known surface as possible.

A rivine in the open desert just a few hundred yards from a
town? This is as "similar to the moon's known surface as
possible?"

How about a nice lava field on an actual test range well away
from civilians? Think they could have managed that? I know of
at least one such site over at White Sands proper. Or is part
of your theory that the Hughes aircraft test pilots were a might
bit confused and wandered 50 miles away from White Sands test
range?

If this was a test involving our people, why couldn't the Air
Force ever figure this out? Project Book Book head Quintilla
wanted nothing better than to debunk the Socorro case. They
looked into the White Sands test craft angle and came up with --
nothing.

Why would a test involving a very unsecret helicopter carrying a
very unsecret "lunar surveyor" be kept secret from Project Blue
Book and the public, even today? Oh, I see, a rocket engine
wasn't supposed to be tested next door to Socorro. They screwed
up and had to cover up the whole thing. Yeah, right. That must
have been it.

There are so many idiotic things wrong with this
helicopter/lunar surveyor theory, there is no point in even
discussing it any further.

>Now pardon my humility, but I have test flown not only the OH-6,
>but the Bell OH-4 (Jet Ranger), and the Hiller OH-5, (later the
>FH-1100 civilian version).

Yet, as usual, you seem to know so little for somebody claiming
to know so much.

>Comment if you wish, but I have no interest in getting into a
>'pizzing' contest with anyone.

When you obviously know nothing about the cases and then throw
out idiotic debunking "explanations," you can expect to get
"pizzed" on.


David Rudiak



So it appears to me (again) that the overall correlation for the Surveyor hypothesis (possibly excepting the April 24, 1966 flight date?) as tested against the available evidence of the case is insufficient to support that hypothesis as an “explanation”.

While additional data might prove more revealing, or instructive, toward validating the Surveyor hypothesis, several salient facts appear to presently argue against it as a scientifically validated theory. In which case, the Scientific Method now instructs us to either discard or substantially modify the hypothesis…

…and the Socorro “sighting” continues to remain as a scientific “unknown”.



As for the Viking aeroshell tests, they occurred in the 1970’s, and are thus properly excluded from the (1964) Socorro data field and/or field of inquiry.



If you would like, I could comment further on the other cases, too, but I’ll try to keep the discussion more manageable for the moment, if that would be helpful?


Access Denied wrote:Shame on me. (the "gratuitous debunker" that I am!) :D


I never called you a "gratuitous debunker".:) ~ You did. :shock:

But to me, you're only Sir GodTom - Neon Knight of the "paraphrenic" realm. 8)



Serp :)


Access Denied wrote:I’d love to tell you what my answer to the other two questions were but I’m saving that for my next book “Starving Artists I: Rock Stars and the Women Who Feed Them”. I envision it as a companion piece to Penelope Spheeris’ “The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years”. 8)

:Say, wanna hear about the time Sade introduced me to Chrissie Hynde who went back home to England with my demo tape and I never heard from again? :x


LOL

Sure! An autographed copy of your memoirs would be most excellent! :D


Access Denied wrote:
Serpentime wrote:As for me, I used to have girls ask me (seriously): "Do you like Axl Rose?? - to which I got in the habit of answering: "I dunno. I've never met him." LOL


Well, if the question ever comes up again you could say you’ve heard that he knows surprisingly more about guitars then you’d think a front man would and leave it at that. :)


Wow. Very interesting… Then again, I guess that we should probably thank Slash for bringing the Les Paul back. :D I might not have saved my pennies for an LP Standard (Cherryburst) without him. LOL


Access Denied wrote:I bet, I don’t think I would have been as cool about it as you though. I’d be asking Geddy all kinds of stupid tech questions like whether he used the OB-Xa or Jupiter-8 for the synth line in “Tom Sawyer”. :D


Oh God… all those effects make my head spin! LOL I guess I’d rather just plug my old Marshall Gov’nor and my Crybaby into my 5150 and tough it out. :) If I get “ambitious” enough (haha…) I might even add a BF-2 and my (poser :( LOL) Digitech RP3 into the line. :)


~ Edward Van Halen, I’m NOT. ROTFL

{But I do have a “Wolfie” Special. Nice axe, IMO. :)}


Access Denied wrote:Great post Serp! Now you've got me thinking twice about some of this crazy stuff again too...


Why, thanks. It was fun to write. :) Perhaps Major Quintanilla would understand your “morning after regrets”…? LOL


And as for the “crazy” stuff:

Ronnie Dio wrote: It’s always a mystery. Just like you and me.


:D
"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 » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:20 am

Serpentime wrote:And if we check the physical dimensions of those gears against the official technical specifications at Boeing.com, we see that the given dimensions of 14.08 feet in total width do NOT match the 12 foot measurements obtained on the scene.

[snip]

Further again, it was also suggested by the USAF investigators, that the total weight of the object that made the “impressions” would likely have been several tons. But again, the official specifications tell us that Surveyor only weighed 2,283 pounds.


Err… just a quick head ups Serp in case you want to modify your (and Rudiak’s) analysis in light of some new data before I get a chance to respond more fully. ;)

According to this those are the wrong specs, the smaller (Earth) test vehicle was closer to 12 feet wide and only weighed 625 pounds (well within the lift capacity of the "egg shaped" helicopter :))…

http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal112/gal112.html

SURVEYOR (test article)

Height: 3 m (10 ft)
Width: 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in)
Weight (at landing): 283 kg (625 lb)
Manufacturer: Hughes Aircraft Corp


This makes sense since the Earth test article would need to be 1/6th the weight of the Lunar lander to simulate the difference in gravity. The four (instead of three) depressions aren't necessarily a show stopper either but I need to see if I can dig up the original field reports to be sure. Stay tuned...

Image
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 wetsystems » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:41 am

The best evidence would seem to be that the Zamora egg and the surveyor gizmo couldn't possibly look less alike. It's tantamount to confusing a dolphin with an octopus. That would leave an attack on Zemora's credibility as the last refuge of debunkery in this case- an attack that Quntanilla was loathe to make. The ETH is the most logical conclusion in this case.
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 » Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:30 pm

wetsystems wrote:The best evidence would seem to be that the Zamora egg and the surveyor gizmo couldn't possibly look less alike. It's tantamount to confusing a dolphin with an octopus.

Err.. the theory is Zamora may have mistaken the helicopter it was attached to for an “egg” not the lander. :)

Here’s some points in favor of the TH (terrestrial hypothesis) that have yet to be refuted…

http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm

* The Surveyor tests were done with a small Bell helicopter that supported the craft from its side. The helicopter and spacecraft would have presented a bizarre profile. The Surveyor's slanted legs fit Zamora's description well, and are also a match for the shape of the "landing pod imprints" found later. In Stanford's 1976 book, he mentions Phil Klass's comment that landing pads like Surveyor's were among the only practical shapes for that function.

* The spacecraft used vernier engines and attitude jets to probe and sample soil, which could explain the flames the policeman saw, and the burn marks many saw. The flames weren't being used for lift; that was supplied by the helicopter. The burn marks at the site did not indicate sufficient thrust to lift a large vehicle, according to Hynek.

* The Surveyor used a mechanical scoop with a shape that matches a rectangular trough photographed at the Socorro site.

* Zamora described the craft as "aluminum-white," which certainly matched the bulk of the Bell helicopter.

* The tests missions were manned by a helicopter pilot and a Hughes engineer ... two persons, in white coveralls.

* Most people in Socorro, and several of the investigators, thought it was most likely a secret government experiment, and some Blue Book researchers even pinned it down as a tenant operation run by Holloman, the base for the Surveyor test flights.

The similarities are striking in my opinion. Reportedly Zamora said he was spooked by the loud roar it made when it took off and lost his glasses.
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 wetsystems » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:39 am

Err.. the theory is Zamora may have mistaken the helicopter it was attached to for an “egg” not the lander.


If the helicopter was an egg I'd love to see the chicken that laid it.
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 Serpentime » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:45 am

Access Denied wrote:Err… just a quick head ups Serp in case you want to modify your (and Rudiak’s) analysis in light of some new data before I get a chance to respond more fully. ;)

According to this those are the wrong specs, the smaller (Earth) test vehicle was closer to 12 feet wide and only weighed 625 pounds (well within the lift capacity of the "egg shaped" helicopter :))…


O.k.

Just real quickly.... I'm confused as to whether the test vehicle data actually reflects the weight of the test vehicle, or mis-states the weight based on what the actual vehicle (weight at landing) should have weighed on the moon? The reason that I raise this point is because it seems difficult (to me?) to understand how the engineers could have shaved 73% of the weight off of the original design and still ended up with a functioning vehicle (leaving the avionics off, maybe? But still... what about the thrusters and their fuel? That stuff's heavy. :? )?

And if they could save all of that weight, why send it to the Moon? That's expensive and requires a bigger booster rocket. :?


Additionally, the "625" figure (if correct) creates an even greater (?) discrepancy with regard to this issue:

Serpentime wrote:Further again, it was also suggested by the USAF investigators, that the total weight of the object that made the “impressions” would likely have been several tons. But again, the official specifications tell us that Surveyor only weighed 2,283 pounds.


In which case, it becomes even more difficult to explain the physical characteristics that were allegedly observed / recorded for the four "depressions".


Access Denied wrote:The four (instead of three) depressions aren't necessarily a show stopper either but I need to see if I can dig up the original field reports to be sure. Stay tuned...


By all means. :) I remember reading about Hynek's investigation in his book (I think?) but don't have the relevant data handy. To the best of my memory, the "four depressions" description has always been consistently repeated, though (outside of the FBI documents).


Access Denied wrote:Here’s some points in favor of the TH (terrestrial hypothesis) that have yet to be refuted…

The Surveyor's slanted legs fit Zamora's description well, and are also a match for the shape of the "landing pod imprints" found later.


Except that the "landing pod imprints" were described to be approximately 6" x 16" and rectangular in shape, while the Surveyor landing pads (even those on the test model, I believe?) were unmistakably round (?).


Access Denied wrote:...some Blue Book researchers even pinned it down as a tenant operation run by Holloman, the base for the Surveyor test flights.


But if they did, they obviously neglected to inform Major Quintanilla. :( All those years of angst for nothing... LOL

Moreover, there still doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the Surveyor data was withheld from Quintanilla. Nor is there any evidence (?) to suggest that he was not duly aware of it.

Despite his apparent personal "distaste" for the "unknown" outcome, he specifically ruled out any explanation from Holloman.


Access Denied wrote:The similarities are striking in my opinion. Reportedly Zamora said he was spooked by the loud roar it made when it took off and lost his glasses.


In my opinion, the correlation is weak. I find it very difficult to believe (without being there myself, and in my opinion) that anyone could mistake a payload suspended from a helicopter (as a complete symbiotic unit?) for an "egg" that allegedly made a roaring sound as it "took off", and then became silent before flying away at a high rate of speed (as the witness reported).

Personally speaking, I've been near, and under, a few helicopters in my time, and I would NEVER describe these helicopters as silent, or as flying away at a high rate of speed (especially with a suspended payload).


But that's just me. 8)


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 » Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:23 am

Serpentime wrote:Just real quickly.... I'm confused as to whether the test vehicle data actually reflects the weight of the test vehicle, or mis-states the weight based on what the actual vehicle (weight at landing) should have weighed on the moon? The reason that I raise this point is because it seems difficult (to me?) to understand how the engineers could have shaved 73% of the weight off of the original design and still ended up with a functioning vehicle (leaving the avionics off, maybe? But still... what about the thrusters and their fuel? That stuff's heavy. :? )?

Hey Serp, rocket powered vehicles are traditionally designed to have a mass ratio (wet vs. dry mass) that is as high as possible (typical between 10 and 20) to maximize performance. Since the bulk of the mass is propellants one could reduce the vehicle’s weight by simply not having a full load of propellants and in this case the T-2 test article did not need the main (solid propellant) retrorocket to slow down it’s velocity prior to landing. Only the vernier engines are needed to simulate a Lunar landing on Earth as follows…

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bits ... 4-0406.pdf

A special mock-up of the Surveyor spacecraft was developed whose weight in terrestrial gravity was 1/6 of the flight spacecraft. This vehicle was equipped with a complete vernier engine system, RADVS, inertial sensors, and flight control electronics. It was also aerodynamically balanced to minimize these effects when operating in the Earth’s atmosphere. These modifications, coupled with aerodynamic balancing, scaled the vehicle’s dynamic properties to approximate the flight spacecraft’s dynamics in the lunar environment. (p. 9)

Also…

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 076705.pdf

T-2 Test Program

Test Vehicle

Modified frame, Lunar-g scaled
Vernier engine system
Flight control group (prototype radar and electronics)
Power source
Recovery system (parachute, airbag) (p. 75)

The T-2 test vehicle was for balloon drop tests and the T-2H was attached to a helicopter and likely did not include the recovery system…

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 001352.pdf (p.19)

“T-2H. Helicopter test vehicle for descent tests of T-2 RADVS.”

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bits ... 4-0406.pdf

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 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. (p. 9)

Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a drawing or photograph of this setup.

Serpentime wrote:Additionally, the "625" figure (if correct) creates an even greater (?) discrepancy with regard to this issue:
Serpentime wrote:Further again, it was also suggested by the USAF investigators, that the total weight of the object that made the “impressions” would likely have been several tons. But again, the official specifications tell us that Surveyor only weighed 2,283 pounds.

In which case, it becomes even more difficult to explain the physical characteristics that were allegedly observed / recorded for the four "depressions".

Not necessarily. Again, the important part of the 625 pound figure is that is well within the lifting capacity of the helicopter used (a Bell 47G) contrary to Rudiak’s claim which by the way wasn’t even for the right helicopter. Also, as noted earlier, the T-2H was attached (to the side?) of the helicopter somehow (not suspended as you suggested) and since I find it highly unlikely that the lander could support the entire weight of the helicopter, it seems possible to me that the depressions could be attributed to the helicopter itself which leads me to your next comment…

Serpentime wrote:I remember reading about Hynek's investigation in his book (I think?) but don't have the relevant data handy. To the best of my memory, the "four depressions" description has always been consistently repeated, though (outside of the FBI documents).

Unfortunately I burned all my UFO books like 25 years ago (LOL) and I can’t seem to find a copy of an official report diagramming the various impressions found anywhere. Several sources on the web use the term “trapezoidal” to describe the relationship between the four main depressions which suggests it wasn’t square and possibly one was out of place? Note also that this FBI report talks about another set of three depressions in addition to the four you always hear about…

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640508_pg2.htm

There were 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.

I don’t know what relationship these were arranged in (e.g. how far apart and were they equal?) but could these be from the lander and the other four from the helicopter it was attached to or visa versa? Beats me since I can’t find any descriptions of this curious helicopter/lander arrangement but this document, if it can be located, might shed some light on this…

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028593.pdf (p. 116)

“Final T-2H Test Phase Report QA-I Model RADVS Testing on the Bell 47G Helicopter” Hughes Aircraft Co., Document No. 2254.6/410, 11/10/64

Too bad I don’t work for the eccentric old recluse anymore. :(

(ironically Hughes’ health benefits weren’t all that great :shock:)

Serpentime wrote:Moreover, there still doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the Surveyor data was withheld from Quintanilla. Nor is there any evidence (?) to suggest that he was not duly aware of it.

True. Perhaps he simply wasn’t talking to the right people? ;)

Image

Image

Serpentime wrote:In my opinion, the correlation is weak. I find it very difficult to believe (without being there myself, and in my opinion) that anyone could mistake a payload suspended from a helicopter (as a complete symbiotic unit?) for an "egg" that allegedly made a roaring sound as it "took off", and then became silent before flying away at a high rate of speed (as the witness reported).

Maybe that’s because you’re not a half- blind drunk police officer? :D

Seriously, there’s some odd statements in Zamora’s original statement…

(more on that later if you're still worried this might be evidence of aliens in our midst :))

http://nicap.org/zamora2.htm

Lonnie Zamora wrote:"Sun was to west and did not help vision. Had green sun glasses over prescription glasses."

“Glasses fell to ground, left them there.”

“I picked up my glasses (I left the sun glasses on ground)”

"Last drink--two or three beers--was over a month ago."

Maybe it’s just me what's up with all the glasses stuff? Then there’s this from the FBI report that I’m not quite sure what to make of…

http://nicap.org/docs_nmex/fbi640428b_pg2.htm

FBI wrote:"He also noted that [blacked out] had an odor of alcohol about him"

Seems strange given the opinion by (fellow?) police officers that Zamora seemed sober doesn’t it?

AD
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 wetsystems » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:42 am

Said AD:
it seems possible to me that the depressions could be attributed to the helicopter itself


How is it possible for a helicopter to leave 4 rectangular depressions when helicopters land on long tubular skids? Such skids are clearly shown in the picture you supplied and are typical of all helicopters.

And he further says:
Maybe that’s because you’re not a half- blind drunk police officer?

Seriously, there’s some odd statements in Zamora’s original statement…

(more on that later if you're still worried this might be evidence of aliens in our midst


Image
The half blind, drunken policeman, Lonnie ("El Souse") Zamora

Is this the "more on that later" to assuage our fear of aliens- the famous Klass debunk that the entire hoax was cooked up by the mayor of Socorro to enhance the value of some property that he owned near bye the landing site?

Maybe it's time to take a page from the well-known Phil Klass M.O.: when all else fails let's resort to character assassination. (Just ask Stan Friedman about this.)

Said Serp:
...I find it very difficult to believe... that anyone could mistake a payload suspended from a helicopter... for an "egg"... .


Not so fast, amigo!

Image
Bell 47G with Surveyor Gizmo attached. Sketched by Lonnie Zamora on the back of a Jack Daniels label, 1965
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 Jul 29, 2007 3:47 pm

wetsystems wrote:How is it possible for a helicopter to leave 4 rectangular depressions when helicopters land on long tubular skids? Such skids are clearly shown in the picture you supplied and are typical of all helicopters.

Good question. This wasn’t a typical helicopter and I don’t know how the test article was attached to it. Was it attached to the bottom or was it attached the side and needed something to raise it up to give it clearance? Did it have wheels? Seems to me these are the kind of questions that need to be answered before jumping to the conclusion of “alien spaceship”.

wetsystems wrote:Maybe it's time to take a page from the well-known Phil Klass M.O.: when all else fails let's resort to character assassination. (Just ask Stan Friedman about this.)

So are you saying you are willing to take any witnesses’ statement at face value without question simply because you think they saw an “alien spaceship”? Seems to me one also needs to consider the possibility that the witness could have been simply mistaken in their interpretation and perception. In this case a witness not wearing their glasses and possibly also being under the influence certainly raises some valid suspicion don’t you think?

wetsystems wrote:Bell 47G with Surveyor Gizmo attached. Sketched by Lonnie Zamora on the back of a Jack Daniels label, 1965

LOL good one. Does that look a “overturned car” to you? :) Tthat’s just one of the several different ways Zamora described the “object” in his statement... have you read it? The guy's all over the place...
Last edited by Access Denied on Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 wetsystems » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:04 pm

Does that look a “overturned car” to you?

Well- to me it looks like a dog turd stuck to the side of a smoking hot construction dumpster in Albuquerque. But to any state cop from Walsenburg to Tuscon it would have looked like a '58 VeeDub on its side in a junk-filled arroyo with a peace sign drawn on the roof. (Maybe you had to have been there...)

And...
AD- I don't know how this highly classified picture came into your hands but I'd be careful if I were you.

Image
The three Ferengi trade delegates who met with President Eisenhower posing with their egg-shaped transport ship at Groom Lake, Nevada in 1959
TOP SECRET/ EYES ONLY
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 Jul 29, 2007 5:44 pm

wetsystems wrote:Well- to me it looks like a dog turd stuck to the side of a smoking hot construction dumpster in Albuquerque. But to any state cop from Walsenburg to Tuscon it would have looked like a '58 VeeDub on its side in a junk-filled arroyo with a peace sign drawn on the roof. (Maybe you had to have been there...)

LOL… damn hippies. :) (took over Taos they did with their pipe dreams of “commune utopia”)

wetsystems wrote:The three Ferengi trade delegates who met with President Eisenhower posing with their egg-shaped transport ship at Groom Lake, Nevada in 1959
TOP SECRET/ EYES ONLY

Yeah, what’s up with the stuffed suits in the middle of the freakin’ desert? :)
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 2 guests

cron