Your favorite UFO image/s?

[LCARS24]

* to be fair - do you, or anyone have a decent cite for Hynek's 'survey' of astronomers? I understand that it was a sample size of just 44.. - how were those lucky 44 selected? And the 11% (ie 5) astronomers that apparently reported they had seen things that were not explainable - just how exactly was that determined/asked? I've read a fair bit of Hynek's stuff, and I have to say I am unimpressed with his continual use of flowery speech, anecdotes and hearsay - it is very obviously for dramatic effect and seems to cover a lack of substance.

I don't have any UFO books except the one I just downloaded and read, by Captain Ruppelt. You know what's in Wikipedia, but I'll post it anyway:

Hynek's opinions about UFOs began a slow and gradual shift. After examining hundreds of UFO reports over the decades (including some made by credible witnesses, including astronomers, pilots, police officers, and military personnel), Hynek concluded that some reports represented genuine empirical observations.

Another shift in Hynek's opinions came after conducting an informal poll of his astronomer colleagues in the early 1950s. Among those he queried was Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the dwarf planet Pluto. Of 44 astronomers, five (over 11 percent) had seen aerial objects that they could not account for with established, mainstream science[citation needed]. Most of these astronomers had not widely shared their accounts for fear of ridicule or of damage to their reputations or careers (Tombaugh was an exception, having openly discussed his own UFO sightings[citation needed]). Hynek also noted that this 11% figure was, according to most polls, greater than those in the general public who claimed to have seen UFOs[citation needed]. Furthermore, the astronomers were presumably more knowledgeable about observing and evaluating the skies than the general public, so their observations were arguably more impressive. Hynek was also distressed by what he regarded as the dismissive or arrogant attitude of many mainstream scientists towards UFO reports and witnesses.

Here's Captain Ruppel's description (he didn't want to name Dr. Hynek at that time):

We asked an astronomer, whom we knew to be unbiased about the UFO problem and who knew every outstanding astronomer in the United States, to take a trip and talk to his friends. We asked him not to make a point of asking about the UFO but just to work the subject into a friendly conversation. This way we hoped to get a completely frank opinion. To protect his fellow astronomers, our astronomer gave them all code names and he kept the key to the code.

The report we received expressed the detailed opinions of forty five recognized authorities. Their opinions varied from that of Dr. C, who regarded the UFO project as a "silly waste of money to investigate an even sillier subject," to Dr. L, who has spent a great deal of his own valuable time personally investigating UFO reports because he believes that they are something "real." Of the forty five astronomers who were interviewed, 36 per cent were not at all interested in the UFO reports, 41 per cent were interested to the point of offering their services if they were ever needed, and 23 per cent thought that the UFO's were a much more serious problem than most people recognized.

None of the astronomers, even during a friendly discussion, admitted that he thought the UFO's could be interplanetary vehicles. All of those who were interested would only go so far as to say, "We don't know what they are, but they're something real."

He also mentioned that an astronomer called in and reported seeing a balloon through this telescope north of Nashville during the time Captain Mantell was chasing what might have been a skyhook balloon, which was top secret at the time, and which the operators never admitted to having in the air at that time, although Captain Ruppelt did try to find out.

But anyway, only five astronmers in a small survey conducted in the only way they thought they could get any astronmers to talk, and in the early 1950s. But recently I heard someone now well known in ufology (I don't remember who) say that he was at a symposium where the audience was full of astronomers and that when someone opened that door and shouted that there was a UFO outside none of the astronomers went out to look. Cute story. Dr. Hynek, I'm sure, would have gotten a kick out of that.

Here's a quote from Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who on August 20, 1949, observed a UFO that appeared as a geometrically arranged group of six-to-eight rectangles of light, windowlike in appearance and yellowish-green in color, which moved from northwest to southeast over Las Cruces, New Mexico:

I doubt that the phenomenon was any terrestrial reflection, because . . . nothing of the kind has ever appeared before or since. . . . I was so unprepared for such a strange sight that I was really petrified with astonishment.

So small, since he went and visited his astronomer friends, but here's a summary report on a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society conducted by Professor Peter Sturrock of Stanford University:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm

[nablator]

Nab, well found. I'd say that this small crop from that page is reasonably convincing that the original image has no artefact:

Unfortunately it has been cropped so closely, it is hard to verify it is exactly the right area.

It is, the ground features match the area. The 'UFO' (or a painted area) should be there, but it isn't. The low resolution and scan moiré pattern, however, make it difficult to see whether the UFO was skillfully masked by evil debunkers...

I saw the Martin "Plane Facts" brochure on e-bay not long ago, someone, somewhere, has it and can check. Or, even better, someone could dig the original at the Smithsonian.

[astrophotographer]

But recently I heard someone now well known in ufology (I don't remember who) say that he was at a symposium where the audience was full of astronomers and that when someone opened that door and shouted that there was a UFO outside none of the astronomers went out to look. Cute story. Dr. Hynek, I'm sure, would have gotten a kick out of that.

Openning chapter 1 (The laughter of science) in Hynek's book "the UFO experience". He states it happened in British Columbia in the summer of 1968. Of course, that is his statement and it ends with this. He then proceeds to criticize his fellow scientists for not taking an interest in UFOs. The most hypocriticial thing about this was Hynek was there! Why don't we have more details about this incident? Why didn't Hynek run outside, observe the UFOs, and make detailed observations of them? Instead, all we get is silence about what he did. Did Hynek simply ignore these UFOs? That makes him just as guilty as the scientists he is criticizing. Based on this, I would not give the anecdote much credence.

Here's a quote from Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who on August 20, 1949, observed a UFO that appeared as a geometrically arranged group of six-to-eight rectangles of light, windowlike in appearance and yellowish-green in color, which moved from northwest to southeast over Las Cruces, New Mexico:

He also told Dr. Menzel:

A much more likely explanation is some natural optical phenomenon in our atmosphere. In my 1949 sighting the faintness of the object, together with the manner of fading in intensity as it traveled away from zenith towards the southeastern horizon is quite suggestive of a reflection from an optical boundary or surface of slight contrast in refractive index, as in an inversion layer. I have not seen anything like it before or since, and I have spent a lot of time where the night sky could be seen well. This suggests that the phenomenon involves a comparatively rare set of conditions or circumstances to produce it, but nothing like the odds of an interstellar visitation. (Menzel and Boyd The world of flying saucers Pages 269-270)

[chrLz]

Here's a quote from Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, who on August 20, 1949, observed a UFO that appeared as a geometrically arranged group of six-to-eight rectangles of light, windowlike in appearance and yellowish-green in color, which moved from northwest to southeast over Las Cruces, New Mexico:

I doubt that the phenomenon was any terrestrial reflection, because . . . nothing of the kind has ever appeared before or since. . . . I was so unprepared for such a strange sight that I was really petrified with astonishment.

That quote includes no reference to being 'window-like', so why did you use that term? I know it is used elsewhere, but Tombaugh, afaics, never used those words - this is his description - note that at no point does he say *how* they were arranged (some illustrations of his sighting show then as being in a circle!) or exactly what they looked like, apart from being faint:

I happened to be looking at zenith, admiring the beautiful transparent sky of stars, when I suddenly spied a geometrical group of faint bluish-green rectangles of light similar to the “Lubbock lights”. My wife and her mother were sitting in the yard with me and they saw them also. The group moved south-southeasterly, the individual rectangles became foreshortened, their space of formation smaller, (at first about one degree across) and their intensity duller, fading from view at about 35 degrees above the horizon. Total time of visibility was about three seconds. I was too flabbergasted to count the number of rectangles of light, or to note some other features I wondered about later. There was no sound. I have done thousands of hours of night sky watching, but never saw a sight as strange as this. The rectangles of light were of low luminosity; had there been a full moon in the sky, I am sure they would not have been visible.

and later he added:

My wife thought she saw a faint connecting glow across the structures. The illuminated rectangles I saw did maintain an exact fixed position with respect to each other, which would tend to support the impression of solidity.

It may be seen as nitpicking, I know, but I have seen a similar claim elsewhere that Tombaugh said they were windows or portholes, but I see NO words in his quotes that suggest that he ever said or thought that. And that's how these stories change over time and become 'better' - it needs to stop {unless you can show a quote that refers to windows}.

[James Carlson]

I've read a fair bit of Hynek's stuff, and I have to say I am unimpressed with his continual use of flowery speech, anecdotes and hearsay - it is very obviously for dramatic effect and seems to cover a lack of substance.

Personally, I think Hynek was so sick of people poking at his "swamp gas" excuses for the USAF that he went bowlers over buckets in the opposite direction, at which point he discovered that he could make a comfortable living without ever having to deal with actual facts getting in the way of his musings ever again. To a fair extent, you can say with some confidence that while he never made another such definitive assessment of an event that he couldn't possibly collect enough objective data to define, he also failed to make any definitive assessments of the mysteries he dedicated the remainder of his life exploring. In the long run, he balanced the scales at nothing, ending his days with far more questions than answers, not what I would consider the greatest legacy for a "scientist".

[LCARS24]

I didn't add "windowlike." His name was in the Wikipedia description, and I found and pasted in the quote from the Web, only correcting the punctuation. Maybe someone added that, but maybe Tombaugh told the story differently on various occasions.

About Dr. Hynek's writing, let me paste in something from Captain Ruppelt's book:

Our final plan called for visual spotting stations to be established all over northern New Mexico. We'd picked this test location because northern New Mexico still consistently produced more reports than any other area in the U.S. These visual spotting stations would be equipped with a sighting device similar to a gun sight on a bomber. All the operator would have to do would be to follow the UFO with the tracking device, and the exact time and the UFO's azimuth and elevation angles would be automatically recorded. The visual spotting stations would all be tied together with an interphone system, so that as soon as the tracker at one station saw something he could alert the other spotters in the area. If two stations tracked the same object, we could immediately compute its speed and altitude.

This visual spotting net would be tied into the existing radar defense net in the Albuquerque-Los Alamos area. At each radar site we proposed that a long focal length camera be synchronized to the turning radar antenna, so that any time the operator saw a target he could press a button and photograph the portion of the sky exactly where the radar said a UFO was located. These cameras would actually be astronomical telescopes, so that even the smallest light or object could be photographed.

In addition to this photography system we proposed that a number of sets of instruments be set out around the area. Each set would contain instruments to measure nuclear radiation, any disturbances in the earth's magnetic field, and the passage of a body that was giving off heat. The instruments would continually be sending their information to a central "UFO command post," which would also get reports directly from the radars and the visual spotting stations.

This instrumentation plan would cost about $250,000 because we planned to use as much surplus equipment as possible and tie it into existing communications systems, where they already existed. After the setup was established, it would cost about $25,000 a year to operate. At first glance this seemed like a lot of money, but when we figured out how much the UFO project had cost the Air Force in the past and how much it would probably cost in the future, the price didn't seem too bad - especially if we could solve the UFO problem once and for all.

The powers-that-be at ATIC O.K.'d the plan in December and it went to Washington, where it would have to be approved by General Samford before it went to ADC and then back to the Pentagon for higher Air Force official blessing. From all indications it looked as if we would get the necessary blessings.

But the majority of the effort at Project Blue Book during the fall of 1952 had gone toward collecting together all of the bits and pieces of data that we had accumulated over the past year and a half. We had sorted out the best of the "Unknowns" and made studies of certain aspects of the UFO problem, so that when we could assemble a panel of scientists to review the data we could give them the over-all picture, not just a basketful of parts.

The book left me hanging on what happened to the plan, but I'd consider it a safe bet that it was never implemented and that Dr. Hynek would have preferred this to all he went through on this UFO thing. It's certainly not what he went to college for. Head of the Astronomer Department at Northwestern sound like a pretty good gig to me. And getting the amount of data he would have liked for a book could have been extremely expensive.

Flowery? Maybe. I don't have any of his books. Anyay, that's a bit off-topic. If you don't like ufologists or their style, put them out of business by flooding members of Congress with letters asking for hearings.

Getting back to photos, I posted the one from the mapping mission taken over Lago de Cote Costa Rica. I found a debunker's claim on that:

[Win-flect: Photographer's shirt button (air recon)]

Source:
http://midimagic.sgc-hosting.com/ufosphot.htm

So what about that? These are high-res pictures taken automatically, one every 17 seconds IIRC, and I would think with telephoto set to infinity. For a mapping mission I would also expect the lens to be protected from reflections inside the plane, which is not so hard to accomplish. Otherwise all shots would have artifacts, which would be undesirable for the purpose. And shouldn't near objects be out of focus? If a debunker thinks something fell off the plane or was thrown out a window, okay, but does this button story make sense?

[chrLz]

I didn't add "windowlike." His name was in the Wikipedia description, and I found and pasted in the quote from the Web, only correcting the punctuation. Maybe someone added that, but maybe Tombaugh told the story differently on various occasions.

'Window-like' is not anywhere on his wiki page, nor can I find it *anywhere* as directly attributable to Tombaugh. It appears to be the addition of some ufology author, which has now been endlessly repeated and added to the 'accepted' description - which pretty much makes my point...

1. Hear story
2. Embellish slightly
3. Tell new improved version to next listener.
4. Go to 1.

...sigh...

I'm not having a go at you, lcars - just the whole topic.

[chrLz]

...If you don't like ufologists or their style, put them out of business by flooding members of Congress with letters asking for hearings.

? Some of us don't live in the US.. I would simply prefer that there were more sites that took a more serious appraoch to ufology (that's why I'm here..) and that the bad investigations / pretenders are prevented from gaining such traction..

Getting back to photos, I posted the one from the mapping mission taken over Lago de Cote Costa Rica. I found a debunker's claim on that:

[Win-flect: Photographer's shirt button (air recon)]

...So what about that?

Well, I'd never seen that page before (and probably won't again, as it seems pretty lame - 'win-flect'??? Puhlease...)
But it appears you found a page full of 'debunkings', at least one of which is shallow and most probably wrong.

Does that lessen that case? No.
Does it affect or has it affected a proper investigation? No.
Does a flawed analysis on the Interweb mean something other than that the person probably isn't very good at that sort of thing? No.
Does it mean all/most debunking is flawed? No. Just as the fact that many ufo sightings are pretty much a waste of time doesn't mean most or all are.

(All of the above answers are my opinions, of course. )

These are high-res pictures taken automatically, one every 17 seconds IIRC, and I would think with telephoto set to infinity.

Correct. But just because a lens is focused at infinity, does not mean that things must be at infinity to be clearly rendered on the negative. Anything at/very near the film plane will be in focus, and something *inside* the lens can also be focused depending on where it is, and it is also possible for something transparent (water/ice) to refocus light and give the impression of being focused.

For a mapping mission I would also expect the lens to be protected from reflections inside the plane, which is not so hard to accomplish.

Probably correct, but has that been verified?

Otherwise all shots would have artifacts, which would be undesirable for the purpose.

How did you leap to that? It could be just reasonably well protected, and then something out of the ordinary caused a problem - the pilot might have dropped his button through a little misaligned slot in the protective cover, and it rolled past for that one image... Yes, I'm being somewhat facetious, but you can't just assume stuff.

And shouldn't near objects be out of focus?

See above. Not necessarily.

If a debunker thinks something fell off the plane or was thrown out a window, okay, but does this button story make sense?

No, it doesn't seem to. But that *sure* looks like a negative problem to me, and not something on the ground or in the sky, if for no other reason that given its surface brightness/shadow and direction of illumination, it just doesn't seem to make any sense, except as something that was on the negative or between it and and the film backing plate.

But this case has been dealt with elsewhere, and I really don't think seeking out 'bad' debunkings is very productive.

[LCARS24]

Well, archived the .pdf of the JSE article on my Web site for safekeeping and linked it on page 1 of this thread, and you know that after Marilyn Bruner mentioned "artifact on the negative" Haines and Vallee obtained the original 23 x 23 cm. negative from the government agency (after first doing their analysis with a copy) and were able to rule out anything on the negative. And the Frisbee wasn't on the previous or next negative (taken 17 seconds apart), nor was anything else suspicious. The button story is just something on a page that came up where there were so many things listed I did a search for the name of the lake and found the first theory I hadn't already seen, silly as it may be.

I found the ATS thread on it (7 pages of mostly fluff, a few details on other sightings in the area, a little relevent discussion, and nothing from James Oberg):

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread620115/pg1

So I don't know, maybe a fisherman's hat or something caught by the wind or something blown out of a nearby helicopter. The plane was at 10,000 feet, sort of ruling out tossed food containers from that source. But since this picture was on the cover of the original COMETA report and definitely not an intentional hoax, it seems ripe for whatever additional analysis can be brought to bear.

[nablator]

But since this picture was on the cover of the original COMETA report and definitely not an intentional hoax, it seems ripe for whatever additional analysis can be brought to bear.

LCARS,

Certainly this picture is worth more analysis. But please don't get me started on COMETA...

A few points worth mentioning.

- The UFO is seen on a dark background (the lake), and no part of it is darker than the background which suggests the possibility of a reflection.

- The UFO is very close to the border of the picture, the most likely place for a reflection to appear from something inside the plane if the camera is close to the window. We don't know the setup, maybe the camera was not stuck to the window (because of vibrations) and a reflection is possible there. A button or something else (the mirror part of an old-style flashlight, not lit) is plausible IMHO.

The UFO is at the right border of the full frame (inset) :


The best resolution that I could find:

[nablator]

The only problem with the reflection of a nearby object theory is the hyperfocal distance.

According to the analysis by Haines and Vallée http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... haines.pdf
focal distance f = 6" = 150 mm
diaphragm opening (f/5.6) N = 5.6
size on film was 23 cm x 23 cm

The circle of confusion c on the "Enigme Photographique au Costa Rica" image is pixel-sized, or smaller.
In the 750 pixels-wide image the magnified area is about the 10th of the full frame, so c = 30 µm.

With the classic formula we get the hyperfocal distance H = f²/(Nc) = 134 m if I'm not mistaken.

This is far too large for something inside the plane.

[James Carlson]

Our final plan called for visual spotting stations to be established all over northern New Mexico. We'd picked this test location because northern New Mexico still consistently produced more reports than any other area in the U.S. These visual spotting stations would be equipped with a sighting device similar to a gun sight on a bomber. All the operator would have to do would be to follow the UFO with the tracking device, and the exact time and the UFO's azimuth and elevation angles would be automatically recorded. The visual spotting stations would all be tied together with an interphone system, so that as soon as the tracker at one station saw something he could alert the other spotters in the area. If two stations tracked the same object, we could immediately compute its speed and altitude.

This visual spotting net would be tied into the existing radar defense net in the Albuquerque-Los Alamos area. At each radar site we proposed that a long focal length camera be synchronized to the turning radar antenna, so that any time the operator saw a target he could press a button and photograph the portion of the sky exactly where the radar said a UFO was located. These cameras would actually be astronomical telescopes, so that even the smallest light or object could be photographed.

In addition to this photography system we proposed that a number of sets of instruments be set out around the area. Each set would contain instruments to measure nuclear radiation, any disturbances in the earth's magnetic field, and the passage of a body that was giving off heat. The instruments would continually be sending their information to a central "UFO command post," which would also get reports directly from the radars and the visual spotting stations.

This instrumentation plan would cost about $250,000 because we planned to use as much surplus equipment as possible and tie it into existing communications systems, where they already existed. After the setup was established, it would cost about $25,000 a year to operate. At first glance this seemed like a lot of money, but when we figured out how much the UFO project had cost the Air Force in the past and how much it would probably cost in the future, the price didn't seem too bad - especially if we could solve the UFO problem once and for all.

The powers-that-be at ATIC O.K.'d the plan in December and it went to Washington, where it would have to be approved by General Samford before it went to ADC and then back to the Pentagon for higher Air Force official blessing. From all indications it looked as if we would get the necessary blessings.

But the majority of the effort at Project Blue Book during the fall of 1952 had gone toward collecting together all of the bits and pieces of data that we had accumulated over the past year and a half. We had sorted out the best of the "Unknowns" and made studies of certain aspects of the UFO problem, so that when we could assemble a panel of scientists to review the data we could give them the over-all picture, not just a basketful of parts.

Sorry for butting in like this, but the conversation started getting more interesting from my point of view a couple days ago, and I wanted to toss in my 2 cents. All of the above sounds like a good idea -- evidently it wasn't adopted. I don't see what any plans Ruppelt wanted to discuss has to do with Hynek's writing style or his inability to fashion an argument with little more than flowers and flash, though, but maybe I'm missing something. Bringing the collection of data forward 50-60 years, I can't help but wonder why such an apparently simple and relatively inexpensive system of the type Ruppelt describes has never been implemented by any of the groups currently calling for a mass declassification of documents and other materials under the control of the Department of Defense. Why rely only on the materials controlled by the U.S. military, when the collection of your own data (not "yours" as a specifically personal identification, but "yours" related to anybody willing to gather the funds necessary to do so) could be accomplished so easily? NICAP, MUFON, Disclosure Project, and possibly a dozen more could implement such a system by simply coordinating the need amongst themselves and requesting the funds from their members and more casual readers visiting their websites. Instead, you've got literally dozens of blogs requesting donations for themselves, authors and other drummers for the cause requesting donations for themselves, organizations requesting donations for themselves, and groups and individuals offering up as much criticism for each other as they do for more skeptical groups while requesting money for themselves. Looked at from this point of view, it's a little difficult not to believe that they're more interested in increasing their individual worth than in solving any actual problems that may or may not exist. Ruppelt has introduced only one method of collecting data in order to solve this "problem" and I'm sure you or anybody else who discusses such matters at R.U. could come with another dozen or so equally viable means to do so, and yet all you ever see tend to be the chance witness reports of someone in the area. There's little coordination of effort, and no real exhibition of the need to collect data and properly examine it -- only a desire to make as much money as possible for reasons of personal economy. I'm willing to bet that Steven Greer himself, or Friedman, Dan Akroyd, even a coalition of authors and organizations could afford to do so tomorrow, and yet we see nothing from them, certainly nothing indicative of the strong moral stand to establish the "truth" that ALL of them seem overly willing to discuss with as much public fanfare and fireworks as they can possibly convince their publicists to foot the bill for. All of them insist that UFOs are not only plentiful, they have also established a regular and notable system of influence on this planet, such as an interest in nuclear facilities or places like Area 51, etc. But instead of collecting their own data using methods such as Ruppelt discusses above, you've got people going through movies, news films, and U-tube videos looking for any little glint on the screen that they point at and say, "see? That's a UFO that they didn't even know they were filming!" And on the basis of that, they request more donations for themselves. Personally, I don't see how anybody can look at everything they've accomplished the past 50-60 years and NOT say, "God, what a joke..." And there are no standouts -- not even Hynek or Ruppelt. Standouts would have accomplished something. Most of what's available, however, is unresolved, with the primary and strongest efforts going to the description and the accent on revelation, usually with nothing else to support it. Only a fool would look at the claims of eyewitnesses alone and say "wow ..." especially when it's so obvious that all of the effort has been put into the description, and no effort at all put into providing any actual evidence. You end up with a bunch of skeptics saying, "this is b.s.", and a lot of UFO witnesses saying "I know what I saw, and it was remarkable." Speaking as a guy who enjoys sitting on the fence, I can assure you that most people consider UFOs a waste of time, and one reason for that is the fact that "true believers" refuse to produce, collect, or attempt to improve the quality of the little stacks of nothing they call "evidence", they refuse to coordinate their efforts doing anything except separating people from their money, or publicizing their inability to present anything except their meaningless little folk tales, or react with anger and insult whenever someone dismisses theoir claims on the basis of "you've missed it -- there's nothing there." Pointing out flowerly language when it eclipses everything else, including the evidence and significance, is not the reaction of a disagreeable skeptic, it's the recognition that nothing's actually being reported. And the fact that the reaction is usually wrapped up in a packaging of disdain, offense, and the well-voiced recognition that what's being reported amounts to an insult, is perfectly natural when the presentation of this pure crap is being offered up in tandem with demands for money and requests for donations so "we can continue to offer you this same level of well-established facts and undeniable evidence of alien technology in use around the world today." Frankly, I'd prefer listening to Christopher Walken say "Can we talk this over? It looks like you're going to sing White Christmas" just before getting a rectal probe in Communion. Only in a movie about UFOs can you excuse the absence of conclusions or a definitive ending or an explanation of the plot by having your main character tell himself, "It is a puzzle box. And you're not going to get to see what's inside. Let's just get that clear..."

And people wonder why the most convincing claims exhibited consist at least in part of "there wouldn't be so many UFO reports if there wasn't something weird going on ..." At least there would be such wonder if we failed to examine how much money was actually being made by those making such claims. And while I would NEVER classify Whitley Streiber's work as indicative of the following statement, having enjoyed his many fine works of fiction that established him as a novelist well before he wrote Communion, it's nonetheless a likely relief for other authors that the absence of any of the real imagination necessary to be a good novelist can often be overcome by simply adding the words "it really happened. I saw it ..." It certainly makes it easier to sell.

[LCARS24]

Nablator,

Agreed. It's not close, nor is it coming out of the water, whatever it is. A balloon can take any shape and could conceivably be in only one frame of a mapping mission snapping every 17 seconds. So that's another suggestion, if not a particularly good one. Maybe someone knew the mapping plane would be coming and made something like the Balloon Boy disc but kept quiet about it.

And the version you show was cropped a little on the right.


James Carlson,
I just was saying that writing UFO books, going all over the country, getting bitten by insects, and being yelled at by insulted witnesses was not what Hynek planned to do with his life, and maybe not his forte. If he had had the resources to get more data, I'm sure he would have kept it almost as dry as his papers on star magnitudes.

About trying to catch them in the act, I live east of Tokyo, so this is probably not something I could do, but we have a system here whereby a government agency can now predict an earthquake a couple of seconds before it starts, and they beep people's cell phones, giving them about a one- or two-second warning. A UFO watch group could do the same thing, where any member could press a hot key on the computer perhaps and beep the cell phone of every other member within 50 miles or so through a system set up and coordinated through a single Web site. It could even be worldwide. And every member should have a camera with a telephoto lens. It's not quite that same as radar control that Ruppelt envisioned, but it's something that sounds doable and not costly. The host site would just have to be able to send such a signal to people in the area where someone cried, "Wolf!!" in the hopes of getting multiple shots of whatever, be it ball lightning, a swarm of locusts, or some blue dude in a tritanium disc that makes bad Einstein jokes, before it gets away. If it is something that looks like smoking gun, then everyone should write a report and send that and a copy of his/her picture to the host site, where someone can check it all then compile a multiple-witness, multiple-photo case report with maps, tables, etc. And someone wanting to set that up could ask MUFON, NICAP, etc. for advice, ideas, tech support, whatever before getting started and perhaps even help in getting the word out.

[James Carlson]

About trying to catch them in the act, I live east of Tokyo, so this is probably not something I could do, but we have a system here whereby a government agency can now predict an earthquake a couple of seconds before it starts, and they beep people's cell phones, giving them about a one- or two-second warning. A UFO watch group could do the same thing, where any member could press a hot key on the computer perhaps and beep the cell phone of every other member within 50 miles or so through a system set up and coordinated through a single Web site. It could even be worldwide. And every member should have a camera with a telephoto lens. It's not quite that same as radar control that Ruppelt envisioned, but it's something that sounds doable and not costly. The host site would just have to be able to send such a signal to people in the area where someone cried, "Wolf!!" in the hopes of getting multiple shots of whatever, be it ball lightning, a swarm of locusts, or some blue dude in a tritanium disc that makes bad Einstein jokes, before it gets away. If it is something that looks like smoking gun, then everyone should write a report and send that and a copy of his/her picture to the host site, where someone can check it all then compile a multiple-witness, multiple-photo case report with maps, tables, etc. And someone wanting to set that up could ask MUFON, NICAP, etc. for advice, ideas, tech support, whatever before getting started and perhaps even help in getting the word out.

I'm sure there are lots of such ideas that could be implemented as easily -- the point is, nobody's doing it. The only thing that is being done by those individuals and groups making the most noise is their continued insistence that they need more money, so please write out your check today. If they genuinely wanted to collect sufficient data to support their cause, they would simply do so. It's academic that they don't. They just ask for contributions to their cause, make fun of everybody who says they're unconvincing and a waste of time to consider in any context whatsoever, and whine endlessly on about national secrets, and how we could all finally understand the complex issues being raised -- issues that they show little ability to even define -- if only the U.S. government would get rid of classified materials and tell the truth about the UFOs in the world today. If they want to establish convincing evidence, than for God's sake, do it -- quit whining about everything in the world that makes things so difficult, quit demanding money every single time they publish a meaningless little editorial discussing how they feel about another collection of facts they've failed to prove, quit arguing over meaningless points they don't even try to define anymore, and go get the data every single one of them insists is already out there and available. Instead they waste the money donated to them in order to set up a news conference in Washington, DC or some such thing during which time they establish nothing, talk about what they KNOW is out there but fail to prove, and demand more money so they can continue to bring you such high quality laser rock show extravaganzas in the future. And then they try to sell you another copy of the overpriced, overrated, and poorly written claptrap that best illustrates the extent of another wasted life talking to people who don't care whether or not they can prove the point being expressed as long it looks like magic and the hall they've rented for the purpose is properly air conditioned. As far as I'm concerned, none of the above would even matter if they would at least quit demanding your respect for the garbage they've produced; but they don't, and that's pretty sickening regardless of the angle from which you've examined it.

They idea you've presented is at least conceivable and well-intentioned enough to consider. Unfortunately, it will never be done. The people with the means to do so have already proven that they don't care much for proof or data that they can provide for themselves instead of relying on the government to provide. If they wanted to follow through with such plans, they would have done it already -- it's not like they've never been discussed. They've just been dismissed. These data collection systems could be automated even, and wouldn't require much upkeep; use of cameras, videos, etc., could be set up quite easily, so why hasn't it been done? I expect it's because there's not enough potential profit margin. The actions of these people at every step they've attempted since the 1950s does little more than establish good and realistic reasons to dismiss their claims entirely. They talk about their own high-minded motivations and collect bragging rights in regard to their morality, but then they go out and buy a new house or improve their stock portfolio at the expense of the environment. The only thing the've shown themselves willing to provide the world is a little entertainment -- and most of it's not worth the cost of admission (and it's never free).

[nablator]

If luminous UFOs were zipping across the sky as often as ufologists believe, meteor tracking networks would detect them. Interesting events (especially if they are way out of the ordinary) would attract attention, and be studied by astronomers. Spectroscopy would yield results, the composition would be known.

For example:
http://www.amsmeteors.org/ams-programs/ ... servatory/

North-American All-Sky Camera Database:
http://allsky.ca/NAdatabase.html

Only one astronomer is claiming to track UFOs (meaning ET vehicles): Eamonn Ansbro from Boyle, Ireland. He hasn't published any results yet.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish- ... 42784.html
Hmmm... tourism... like Roswell...