SUNlite

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:28 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Context is everything. I am trying to demonstrate that there is a definition that DOES apply to what the MOD was describing. It is not a cherry pick but it shows how the MOD can state there was no UFO "project" by using this definition. If the definition of Project did NOT include such a description, then you would have a point. It was your claim the MOD and Dr. Clarke lied when they stated there was no UFO project. Using this definition, they were not lying. This is the point you keep missing.

BTW my use of the terms "department/section" is because I don't know exactly what the term "UFO desk" actually entails. Based on what I have been told, it involved only a few individuals involved in collecting the reports, forwarding the pertinent ones, and filing all of the others away. A couple of clerks and one official probably would have been adequate. Is that a "section", a "department", or what? When I was on the Submarine, the administrative department consisted of the executive officer and a few Yeoman. The Supply department involved a Supply officer, a few storekeeprs, and about a half-dozen cooks. A department can be large or small. A section could indicate a subset of a department (a few people?) but then again, I am not familiar with the MOD's actual structure.


Pope worked on UFOs at the MOD. He called it a project. You've produced no evidence that it wasn't other than an MOD officer saying it wasn't a project and then going on to describing their activities, which any rational person would call a project. But I note the great import and credibility you place on that . . . .

astrophotographer wrote:I am not quite sure what you are stating. Are you stating that Col. Moulder is wrong when he claimed that the Mantell case had been solved and you are using a book written in the 1950s as your source to prove him wrong?

The general impression I get from most UFOlogical writings on the case in the past two decades is that it was a skyhook balloon. Kevin Randle wrote a refereed paper for UFO updates in 2002 where he explained it as a skyhook balloon (he also stated this in his book about project bluebook in the late 1990s). A refereed paper implies that his arguments were all agreed upon by the list. He concluded:

All of this suggests that the Mantell case, and the attached sightings, should be removed from the lists of UFOs. Mantell is explained by the Skyhook balloon and the other sightings by Venus. UFOlogy has solved this one.
His reference to the Venus explanation had to do with sightings made later that evening that were also in the Mantell file.

Meanwhile, Jerome Clark wrote in his UFO book (the paperback version of his encyclopedia published in 1998):
Though the skyhook identification is surely correct, the notion that it was launched from Clinton County airport is certainly mistaken. According to Charles B. Moore, who conduced balloon experiments for the government in the late 1940s, no Skyhook flew fromt eh airport before July 9, 1951. An investigation conducted in the early 1990s by UFOlogists Barry Greenwood and Robert G. Todd identified the balloon as one set off from Camp Ridley, Minnesota, at 8 AM on January 6, 1948.

The study by Greenwood and Todd happened in 1994 or so. However, prior to that Skyhook was still considered a valid explanation by most skeptical writers (see Klass' UFOs explained and Menzel and Boyd's The world of flying saucers). So, you can understand why Col. Moulder considered it explained when such major UFOlogical personalities consider it to be a skyhook balloon. I am not sure why Pope thinks it is still "unsolved". Perhaps he has been swayed by certain sensationalist UFO proponents who consider no classic UFO case ever to be explained. However, it seems that he did not look into the matter very closely.

If you want to discuss the Mantell case at length, we can start another thread on the subject..


. . . So an MOD officer is an unimpeachable source, but the head of Blue Book, with the full power of ATIC and the Pentagon behind him, isn't? More cherry picking and weasel wording. Now I don't doubt that Mantell chased a balloon, the low speed and high altitude surely fit, and if I had to bet $1 on what actually happened, that's where my money would go, but to claim it's solved is wrong . . . especially when it's used as part of a smear piece against Pope who stated, and he was quite correct, that it is unexplained. It is.

It's roughly 700 miles from Camp Ridley to Godman AFB, incident was 31 hours after balloon launch, that's 22 MPH. Object reported as traveling half the speed of a P-51, which cruises at just under 300 mph. So the balloon basically crawls about 600 miles until it hits Kentucky and then jumps several times in speed. It's possible, but hardly proved.

But it does prove one thing . . . you sure do like cherry picking.

And can you confirm that Moulder was aware of the research you cited and why didn't he cite it himself?
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am


Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:21 am

Frank Stalter wrote:Pope worked on UFOs at the MOD. He called it a project. You've produced no evidence that it wasn't other than an MOD officer saying it wasn't a project and then going on to describing their activities, which any rational person would call a project. But I note the great import and credibility you place on that . . . .


You keep saying "any rational person" as if it were a fact. You have not established this. Do you have a poll or some way of proving this because I see it different and I consider myself "rational". The point of the matter is that the MOD says it was not a project and the only person that does call it a project is the same person who has refused to allow documents related to his work there to be released. The best way you can prove it was considered a project is to find documentation where they call it the UFO project. Let me know when you find it.

Frank Stalter wrote:. . . So an MOD officer is an unimpeachable source, but the head of Blue Book, with the full power of ATIC and the Pentagon behind him, isn't?


I did not state that Moulder was an MOD officer. He is nothing of the sort. I am stating you have chosen to reference one source that was written over 40 years ago, who did not have all the information. I have provided sources that demonstrated the more recent investigations found the likely source of the balloon. This was information that Ruppelt obviously did not have access to at the time. Moulder knew this information existed because he was very knowledgable about the subject.

Frank Stalter wrote:It's roughly 700 miles from Camp Ridley to Godman AFB, incident was 31 hours after balloon launch, that's 22 MPH. Object reported as traveling half the speed of a P-51, which cruises at just under 300 mph. So the balloon basically crawls about 600 miles until it hits Kentucky and then jumps several times in speed. It's possible, but hardly proved.


What evidence do you have that it was ACTUALLY traveling at "half the speed of a p-51"? BTW, the winds in the statosphere can reach up to 100-150 mph. That seems to be pretty close to half the speed of a p-51.

Frank Stalter wrote:But it does prove one thing . . . you sure do like cherry picking.


Said the person who used only one source that was out of date. I presented two recent UFO proponent sources that demonstrated that the opinion of some big names in the UFOlogical community is that the case is solved. I don't call that "cherry picking".

Frank Stalter wrote:And can you confirm that Moulder was aware of the research you cited and why didn't he cite it himself?


Well, Moulder is quite knowledgable on the subject of UFOs. He has debated Randle and Clark on the subject of UFOs quite often (including Mantell). Did I tell you (or did you figure out) that Moulder is not his real name? His use of this name was something of a joke. I think I can vouch for his credentials though as he has written several books on UFOs.

BTW, why did he need to cite the sources? He did not quote them and it was pretty much general knowledge that the case had been solved.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby vonmazur » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:50 am

Astrophotographer: You are, of course, correct. =D> Mantell was chasing a balloon, and not for the last time that military pilots did this and could not close or catch up to it, even at their own altitudes!! I once tried to close to a balloon with a an AH-1G (Huey Cobra), it was not easy and at first, very unnerving and confusing, however, once I realized what it was, all was clear.... :)

All of this debate is tiresome and not really necessary, unless one is making a case for some kind of obscure interpretation of an ordinary event....It reminds me of the famous quote, "A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of a small mind..." I cannot offhand remember who said it first, but sometimes on UFO boards, it makes perfect sense to me....

Dale
Neca eos omnes-Deus suos agnoscet
User avatar
vonmazur
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:56 am
Location: Birmingham AL US

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:43 am

astrophotographer wrote:You keep saying "any rational person" as if it were a fact. You have not established this. Do you have a poll or some way of proving this because I see it different and I consider myself "rational". The point of the matter is that the MOD says it was not a project and the only person that does call it a project is the same person who has refused to allow documents related to his work there to be released. The best way you can prove it was considered a project is to find documentation where they call it the UFO project. Let me know when you find it.


Based on what I'm reading from you, rational would certainly not describe you. But if you choose to go along with the MOD's redefining the English language, I can't, in all rationality, stop you.

astrophotographer wrote:I did not state that Moulder was an MOD officer. He is nothing of the sort. I am stating you have chosen to reference one source that was written over 40 years ago, who did not have all the information. I have provided sources that demonstrated the more recent investigations found the likely source of the balloon. This was information that Ruppelt obviously did not have access to at the time. Moulder knew this information existed because he was very knowledgable about the subject.


No but Unwin is. You provided sources, Greenwood/Todd and Randle, that don't agree with each other. The Greenwood/Todd theory is pretty dubious on its' surface. I found Randle's online, gave it a read and I'd say it's more likely correct, but proved? No.

http://www.nicap.org/docs/mantell/analy ... randle.pdf

But, in your opinion, which paper solves the case? They can't both be right.

astrophotographer wrote:What evidence do you have that it was ACTUALLY traveling at "half the speed of a p-51"? BTW, the winds in the statosphere can reach up to 100-150 mph. That seems to be pretty close to half the speed of a p-51.


Mantell was piloting a P-51, they cruise at just under 300 mph. Mantell was quoted by tower personnel as saying the object was traveling about half his speed. Confirmed by others in Randle's paper as roughly accurate. Is there a prize for anal retentiveness you're competing for?

astrophotographer wrote:Said the person who used only one source that was out of date. I presented two recent UFO proponent sources that demonstrated that the opinion of some big names in the UFOlogical community is that the case is solved. I don't call that "cherry picking".

Well, Moulder is quite knowledgable on the subject of UFOs. He has debated Randle and Clark on the subject of UFOs quite often (including Mantell). Did I tell you (or did you figure out) that Moulder is not his real name? His use of this name was something of a joke. I think I can vouch for his credentials though as he has written several books on UFOs.

BTW, why did he need to cite the sources? He did not quote them and it was pretty much general knowledge that the case had been solved.


General knowledge? What's the solution?

I can't say as I blame anyone for not wanting to use their real name writing for Sunrise, although if I were going to slam someone, I wouldn't do it under a pseudonym. Pure cowardice . . . no shock there. It was still a garbage hit piece and your publishing and defending it is just another example of your own low standards.

Did I know it was a pseudonym? I noticed the Moulder/Mulder similarity, the lack of a military branch to go along with the Col. title I chalked up to your usual sloppiness. So who's the author?
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:31 pm

Big snip of recycling. Rinse lather and repeat. You have convinced yourself but you seem to have problems convincing others. Time to move on.

If you want to discuss the Mantell case ad nauseum, feel free to start another thread and lay out your case there. However, I have shown that it was considered solved by several high profile UFOlogists as well as skeptics. Therefore, one can not criticize Moulder from stating it was a solved case. I see no reason to add a correction to the next issue of SUNlite. However, MAYBE I will mention Mantell's case.

Frank Stalter wrote:I can't say as I blame anyone for not wanting to use their real name writing for Sunrise, although if I were going to slam someone, I wouldn't do it under a pseudonym. Pure cowardice . . . no shock there. It was still a garbage hit piece and your publishing and defending it is just another example of your own low standards.

Did I know it was a pseudonym? I noticed the Moulder/Mulder similarity, the lack of a military branch to go along with the Col. title I chalked up to your usual sloppiness. So who's the author?


It is SUNlite and not sunrise (that is the site where Bragalia got some of his Nitinol leads). You call it garbage, I call it important information that needs to be aired. It is pertinent to Pope's credibility as a UFO expert despite what you proclaim. If you want to blindly believe Pope and praise whatever he writes, that is your right but the rest of us have the right to question his story/credentials.

As for the author, he chose to use the pseudonym as a joke and we chuckled about it. He wanted it to remain a puzzle for ambitious readers to figure out. I have already given you clues. If you want to figure out who it is, go right ahead but I am honoring the author's request of not revealing the name. When you figure that out, let me know who the "pelican"is at Magonia. I want to shake his/her hand as well.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:49 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Big snip of recycling. Rinse lather and repeat. You have convinced yourself but you seem to have problems convincing others. Time to move on.

If you want to discuss the Mantell case ad nauseum, feel free to start another thread and lay out your case there. However, I have shown that it was considered solved by several high profile UFOlogists as well as skeptics. Therefore, one can not criticize Moulder from stating it was a solved case. I see no reason to add a correction to the next issue of SUNlite. However, MAYBE I will mention Mantell's case.


It's the sunrise thread, and I'm criticizing your editorial integrity. You claim a case is solved, sight two conflicting papers and won't say which solved it. Bush league . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:

astrophotographer wrote:It is SUNlite and not sunrise (that is the site where Bragalia got some of his Nitinol leads). You call it garbage, I call it important information that needs to be aired. It is pertinent to Pope's credibility as a UFO expert despite what you proclaim. If you want to blindly believe Pope and praise whatever he writes, that is your right but the rest of us have the right to question his story/credentials.

As for the author, he chose to use the pseudonym as a joke and we chuckled about it. He wanted it to remain a puzzle for ambitious readers to figure out. I have already given you clues. If you want to figure out who it is, go right ahead but I am honoring the author's request of not revealing the name. When you figure that out, let me know who the "pelican"is at Magonia. I want to shake his/her hand as well.


If I had to bet $1, I'd bet on Clarke himself. Attacks on Pope, similar writing style, excessive and improper usage of hyphenated words, and, most importantly . . . cowardly. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's nice that you find dishonest and anonymous character assassination a joke. Klass would be proud. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:01 am

Frank Stalter wrote:It's the sunrise thread, and I'm criticizing your editorial integrity. You claim a case is solved, sight two conflicting papers and won't say which solved it. Bush league . . .


Again, you seem to be lost. The title is "SUNlite" and not "sunrise". I consider the case solved because the papers all point to the same conclusion. The problem is there is a certain group that do not want to consider any "classic" UFO case solved. Pope seems to be one of those crowd.

The rest of your "name-calling" and misrepresentation in this thread is more of a reflection on you. I think outside observers can make up their own minds.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:54 am

astrophotographer wrote:
Frank Stalter wrote:It's the sunrise thread, and I'm criticizing your editorial integrity. You claim a case is solved, sight two conflicting papers and won't say which solved it. Bush league . . .


Again, you seem to be lost. The title is "SUNlite" and not "sunrise". I consider the case solved because the papers all point to the same conclusion. The problem is there is a certain group that do not want to consider any "classic" UFO case solved. Pope seems to be one of those crowd.

The rest of your "name-calling" and misrepresentation in this thread is more of a reflection on you. I think outside observers can make up their own minds.


And you still won't answer the simple question. I did. I wrote I thought Randle's paper was more likely closer to the truth, but don't consider it proved. Saying otherwise is like a detective finding a murder victim and claiming, "I've solved the case . . . it was a murder." Solving the case means proving what happened. I think most observers accept Mantell likely chased a balloon, Randle also tossed Venus back into the mix, but there is no proved explanation. But why let that get in the way of an anonymous smear? You have to protect the coward's "right to privacy." :lol: :lol: :lol:

I most certainly have not misrepresented anything in this thread. :^o All I've done is come into a known D-bunker site and beaten you like a rented mule in front of your fans . . . both of them. A couple kool-aid drinkers have given you an "Atta boy," and that's it. Since you don't need any advice on how to lose debates, you've got that mastered, I will give you some advice on how to win debates in the future that's so simple even you will likely understand it: Don't take untenable positions . . . herp derp . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:09 am

Frank Stalter wrote:I most certainly have not misrepresented anything in this thread. :^o All I've done is come into a known D-bunker site and beaten you like a rented mule in front of your fans . . . both of them. A couple kool-aid drinkers have given you an "Atta boy," and that's it. Since you don't need any advice on how to lose debates, you've got that mastered, I will give you some advice on how to win debates in the future that's so simple even you will likely understand it: Don't take untenable positions . . . herp derp . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:


The only person you appear to have convinced is yourself. These debates are never won or lost but they usually reveal something about the people involved. Those that like to declare themselves the 'winner" and "beating people" need to announce this loudly to convince themselves and their followers that they are always right. I let everyone decide for themselves.

EDIT: Sorry, you wanted me to decide which study was the more accurate or something like that. Both are more than adequate IMO but Randle's was far more extensive covering most of the tiny details. All seemed to accept the Skyhook explanation, which is all that matters IMO.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:21 am

astrophotographer wrote:
Frank Stalter wrote:I most certainly have not misrepresented anything in this thread. :^o All I've done is come into a known D-bunker site and beaten you like a rented mule in front of your fans . . . both of them. A couple kool-aid drinkers have given you an "Atta boy," and that's it. Since you don't need any advice on how to lose debates, you've got that mastered, I will give you some advice on how to win debates in the future that's so simple even you will likely understand it: Don't take untenable positions . . . herp derp . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:


The only person you appear to have convinced is yourself. These debates are never won or lost but they usually reveal something about the people involved. Those that like to declare themselves the 'winner" and "beating people" need to announce this loudly to convince themselves and their followers that they are always right. I let everyone decide for themselves.

EDIT: Sorry, you wanted me to decide which study was the more accurate or something like that. Both are more than adequate IMO but Randle's was far more extensive covering most of the tiny details. All seemed to accept the Skyhook explanation, which is all that matters IMO.


Thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it. You never quit and never gave an inch. =D>
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby ryguy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:46 pm

9/10ths of winning a debate is coming across as professional and knowledgeable on the subject matter.

Frank Writes:

All I've done is come into a known D-bunker site and beaten you like a rented mule in front of your fans . . . both of them. A couple kool-aid drinkers have given you an "Atta boy," and that's it.


Not very professional. Not sure what debate you've been taking part in my friend, but self-proclaiming yourself the winner is usually a sign that you've lost.

BTW, the only place RU is ever called a debunker site is among kool-aid drinking believer freaks. So, I guess we now know where you originated from. :-)

To offer some background for our readers, this is an pretty good read: http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... -part.html

...You were owned in that debate too, and all you could do was resort to calling people "debunkers".

Almost as good as our own debate here on the same issue between AD and Serpentime! :-)



-Ryan
---
"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

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:46 am

ryguy wrote:To offer some background for our readers, this is an pretty good read: http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... -part.html

...You were owned in that debate too, and all you could do was resort to calling people "debunkers".

Almost as good as our own debate here on the same issue between AD and Serpentime! :-)

-Ryan


Thanks for noticing! That is a pretty good read. It regards the Socorro hoax case, one that I had some role in bringing to the . . . . sunlight. :lol: :lol: :lol:

One thing I don't notice is me calling anyone a debunker. David Rudiak called me a debunker a couple or more times and I quoted him in responses. That's your smoking gun for calling me a "kool-aid drinking believer freak."

If you have any more advice on what it takes to win debates, please post it so I know what to avoid.

ryguy . . . . pwned!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby Access Denied » Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:56 am

Frank Stalter wrote:One thing I don't notice is me calling anyone a debunker.

Try reading what Ryan wrote again, very slowly this time…

Frank Stalter wrote:David Rudiak called me a debunker a couple or more times and I quoted him in responses.

That’s hilarious, great find Ryan.

Frank Stalter wrote:That's your smoking gun for calling me a "kool-aid drinking believer freak."

Whoosh…

Frank Stalter wrote:If you have any more advice on what it takes to win debates, please post it so I know what to avoid.

Can’t help you there although I would suggest you don’t post at all to save yourself from any further embarrassment…
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]

Re: SUNlite

Postby Gilles F. » Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Greetings,

concerning a recent SUN newspaper UFO article:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... tings.html

I think it is Starlings (étourneaux in french) migration flight. :-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vhE8ScW ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnhE9IX ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71hz9wNsgs&NR=1

What do you think, dears?

Regards,

Gilles F.
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:33 pm

Access Denied wrote:
Frank Stalter wrote:One thing I don't notice is me calling anyone a debunker.

Try reading what Ryan wrote again, very slowly this time…


From reading his replies in this thread, I doubt Frank will be taking your advice. In his rush to score self-appointed success points, he tends to miss the point a lot. Intentionally, obviously.

Frank Stalter wrote:If you have any more advice on what it takes to win debates, please post it so I know what to avoid.

Can’t help you there although I would suggest you don’t post at all to save yourself from any further embarrassment…


Cue further embarrassment! ;)
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 17 guests

cron