SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:38 am

The latest issue of SUNlite is now available for all to read. It involves the RB-47 case and I want to thank the assistance and help I received from all the RU members over the past few months. Their help was something I appreciated in bouncing ideas about.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_1.pdf
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm


Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:58 am

Tim P., just did a quick read through, will go over it more in-depth tomorrow. So far very compelling and well written. More later...

Tim H.
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby nablator » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:33 am

Great research, it has everything I never wanted to know about the RB-47 case but have been forced to find out. :)

=D>

I hope you don't mind if I translate it to French for the sceptic-ovni forum?

And a happy new year!
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby James Carlson » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:03 pm

I'm about half-way through with it, and it's just what I was hoping for: exhaustive, firm, appropriately supportable, well-written, and eminently critical -- brilliant, Tim -- thanks! I'll finish it up tomorrow.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby Gilles F. » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:50 pm

Greetings,
Bravo Tim! I'm very happy to see this awesome work finalized. As usual, SUNlite proceeds here an important work, which will be, I'm sure, another one more "standard" focusing on one more famous UFO case... but from the UFO- skeptic(s) eyes.
I would send again and in public many thanks to Tim Printy and the RU Team for their confidence and how I was "honored", to follow all of this work "on line processing" in privated for now several monthes. As how Tim taked into account modest and humble few feed-backs or taked his precious time to reply on my "technical" or others questions.
It was a real pleasure and a personnal enrichment because, as Tim seems to have been challenged, I was challenged in more or less the same time in France regarding this case too. Even if I shared already and humblely the same "Big Picture" presented in this release, it would have been totaly impossible for us in France to know/find what is presented, discussed about the RB-47 case in this release, as to reach a so impressing finalization, work and final paper.
But, at this hour of the finalization released, what impressed me the most is that Tim have been abble to find new informations and views about the RB47H "Lucy" case that were never presented or that were not enough examined before his contribution. So, Bravo Tim again ;)

Sincerly,

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

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:09 pm

As much as I appreciate the response, I don't consider this work conclusive at all. When writing the article, I felt there were issues that will never be resolved to everyone's satisifaction. Hopefully, it will allow people to look at the case and think about the possibilities. I just felt it was important to point out there are plenty of possibilities than conclude this was a craft of unknown intelligence (aka flying saucer/UFO/not one of ours) as suggested in the UFO encyclopedia.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:40 pm

astrophotographer wrote: I just felt it was important to point out there are plenty of possibilities than conclude this was a craft of unknown intelligence (aka flying saucer/UFO/not one of ours) as suggested in the UFO encyclopedia.

That is, imho, the crux of any of our works, encouraging people to apply critical thinking skills before jumping to any conclusions. Some where William of Occam is smiling.

astrophotographer wrote:As much as I appreciate the response, I don't consider this work conclusive at all. When writing the article, I felt there were issues that will never be resolved to everyone's satisifaction.

Very true...no theory is 100%. You have provided a different approach to look at this event. Very impressive, and by the looks of it, exhaustive piece of work. Well done!

Tim H.
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:59 pm

I received the following e-mail about the article from a UFOlogist, who I respect:

Another comment on your article.


"Brad Sparks has interpreted this to mean that the plane was flying due north at 89 degree west longitude (Gulfport is at approximately 89.08 deg longitude and Biloxi is at 88.9 deg). This argument appears to be based on the assumption that the Navigator was to navigate by the stars along a specific line of longitude. While this is an interesting theory, why use the 89th meridian? Why not 89.5 or 88.5? What is so magical about 89 degrees? In fact, how would they know the Navigator was right if he states he was on 89 degrees unless they had a landmark to reach? It seems like the nice round number is the only reason that Sparks chose this path. "



This is a significant point that needs discussion.


If you think about the process that the RB-47s were conducting, it had two basic purposes: 1, to detect and record the signal characteristics of Soviet radars (in eastern Europe, the USSR, Cuba, the middle east, wherever) and other RF emitters (such as missile telemetry signals, etc) and 2, to geo-locate the emitters.


In the pre-GPS days, this wasn't super easy or accurate. How could it be done when they didn't know the exact position of the plane to the accuracy level needed for this kind of thing? Nowadays they know the position within feet, but what about the 1950s? One of the tricks they used to simplify the job was to fly along lines of latitude and longitude, believe it or not. I discussed this at some length with another one of the RB crow operators. He confirmed what Brad says about the 89 degree meridian being used for this purpose. But basically, the bottom line is that yes, we know _exactly_ where the RB-47 "coasted in" because it was flying along that line. That's the "magic".


The problem with this case, moreso than most UFO cases, is that it's absolutely imperative to have a full understanding of all kinds of technical aspects in order to evaluate it -- but it's so hard to do that. I certainly don't full understand the processes that the ELINT people used, let alone their gear and all its technicalities. And on top of that, there's the great secrecy imposed on this whole espionage process. But it's possible to deduce some of these things at least.


I responded:

So, what you are saying is they always flew along round numbers of each meridian? They would fly along the 89th every time and not 88.5 or 89.6? Why is the 89th so magical? That is my issue. They could easily fly along 88.9 or 88.8 and achieve the same result. If you are correct and they only flew along round numbered meridians, the methodology would make the plane highly predictable for the soviets to counter. All they would have to do is wait along each round numbered meridian after watching a few flights and seeing the routine.

I am trying to grasp why they would HAVE to fly along round numbered meridians at this point. I understand what the raven is stating but it seems to me that ANY meridian would do. That being 89.5, 88.1, 87.2 or whatever. As long as you flew along the meridian it would make sense. Of course, that type of flight brings into issues with wind drift. Like the parallel flight along +32 degrees, the plane would have to fly a zig-zag path as the winds blow them off that line.

At least these are my thoughts. Any comments?
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby nablator » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:36 pm

astrophotographer wrote:At least these are my thoughts. Any comments?

I'm surprised that navigators had to fly in zigzag to compensate for wind drift. I'm pretty sure IFR was invented long before 1957. Was there enough radio beacons to be able to calculate an accurate position anywhere between way points at least over the United States? That's the question... I don't know.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:55 pm

Tim, first I'm the last to know anything about aircraft navigation. Perhaps the answer is less complicated...89th was simply used for most if not all training flights where predictability was not of importance as that of a real ELINT mission. I can't see an operational ELINT mission flying the same course day out on an actual penetration mission, but...

Perhaps the 89th was more of an importance for routine ground tracking of all training RB-47 missions out of Forbes AFB? 89th was a constraint due air space restrictions imposed by the Civil Air Board (or what was then in place before FAA)?

I'm grasping...

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby nablator » Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:25 pm

Found this page about the history of radio navigation systems.
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwiz_10.html

Which ones were in use in 1957 is not clear, especially considering the advanced ELINT capabilities of the RB-47, far above what other airplanes were typically equipped with.
...The new system was introduced in 1957 as "LORAN-C"...
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:19 am

Well, they would not have LORAN C flying over the Soviet Union so they would want to navigate the way they did there.

I continue to have this discussion via e-mail. The best I can get is that it would be "easier" for them to use the 89th meridian and they could resolve the data better. I still have a hard time figuring this out. What would be the difference between flying along the 88.8th meridian vice the 89th meridian? Are we talking about making it easier for people to perform math? IMO, the worse thing would be to fly along a round number longitude. Not only were you training operators in the flight (and the idea this was that type of mission is in doubt) but you were also training those who interpreted the data. If you made a training mission where the math was easy (because you flew on a round number longitude) what would happen if they flew along a fractional longitude during a real mission? Now the interpreters have to work with fractions....gasp!!!! Wouldn't it be better to fly like that during the training mission where the math could be checked against known locations?
I respect the person making the argument but I think this complaint is just not valid at this point. I understand why they would want to fly along a constant line of longitude or latitude but I find it highly predictable. One thing the Soviets were good at was recognizing patterns and the last thing you would want to be is predictable. You would fly along the 33.3 degree longitude and not just the 33rd or 34th meridian.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:39 am

Tim Hebert wrote:Tim, first I'm the last to know anything about aircraft navigation. Perhaps the answer is less complicated...89th was simply used for most if not all training flights where predictability was not of importance as that of a real ELINT mission. I can't see an operational ELINT mission flying the same course day out on an actual penetration mission, but...

Perhaps the 89th was more of an importance for routine ground tracking of all training RB-47 missions out of Forbes AFB? 89th was a constraint due air space restrictions imposed by the Civil Air Board (or what was then in place before FAA)?

I'm grasping...

Tim


I don't think that was the case as far as air traffic lanes. In 1957, I don't think they had the navigation lanes they have today. The air traffic was not as heavy and they probably had a lot more latitude in their flight plans.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby Zep Tepi » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:28 am

I've posted a brief message on the blog concerning the article. The more people that see this excellent wotk, the better.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby astrophotographer » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:21 am

Well, I am off to bed but I just wanted to pass this on about the 89th meridian as the e-mail exhanges between me and this person have gotten a bit lengthy. Supposedly Col. Bailey confirmed they always flew on round number longitudes on training missions. This might be the case. However, we have to consider several issues here:

1) The co-pilot and McClure denied this was a training mission. There was no reason for them to fly on a round numbered meridian.
2) Chase stated they were not performing any Raven mission UNTIL they were flying west from Meridian. Again, there would be no reason for them to fly along this round numbered meridian if they were not flying the Raven part at this moment in time.
3) IT does not consider the possibility they had drifted east. Were they flying at 89 degrees or 88.9? The CPS-6B was at 88.95 degrees (only 2.5 miles east of the 89th meridian). Even if they were flying along the 89th, there is no reason for them to perfectly on course. They could have been a few miles east at this point, which brings the CPS-6B into play.

As I told the individual in question, I am not buying this flying along round numbered meridians. It makes no sense to me and I am trying some inquiries into this. I may be able to resolve the issue in a few days (or not).
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests

cron