SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby the|exx » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:39 am

Downloading now! Thanks for the heads-up. Looking forward to a fascinating read!

IRM ;)
They're coming to take me away, Ha-Haaah!
- Dan Burisch
User avatar
the|exx
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia


Re: SUNlite 4-1 RB-47 case

Postby James Carlson » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:22 am

Does anybody have any idea when the last FOIA request in regard to RB-47 was submitted? I only ask, because there's a possibility that a training mission for one of the ground radar stations (such as Duncanville) may have had something to do with the RB-47 assignment -- slim, I admit, but it might explain the course, as well as the denials. Maybe they were just never told. If there was training involved that wasn't necessarily for the flight itself, it's possible that any FOIA requests in regard to the aircraft alone would have been insufficient for the USAF to disclose associated ground-based training, if the RB-47 was just the target. It could have been even weirder if there was a joint forces training exercise with RB-47 as basically a target of opportunity.
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 astrophotographer » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:38 pm

I doubt that FOIA will reveal anything. According to Sparks, the NSA took all the data (recordings, photographs, interviews with the radar crew at Duncanville, etc.) and hid it from prying eyes forever and ever and ever. I don't think the NSA was ever involved with UFO report but you never know. It seemed like nobody was really interested at the time. It took them two months to get Chase to fill out a UFO report! One would think if the NSA were involved, Chase would be the one guy they would have talked to about it or had him keep quiet. Instead, he was free to mention it to just about anyone, which is how the whole thing became a huge UFO event. He mentioned the incident during the Condon investigation and the rest is UFO history.
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 » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:48 pm

Tim, any more email comments that you have been receiving concerning your article? I've been checking a couple of web sites, but quiet as of now.

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 James Carlson » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:14 pm

astrophotographer wrote:I doubt that FOIA will reveal anything. According to Sparks, the NSA took all the data (recordings, photographs, interviews with the radar crew at Duncanville, etc.) and hid it from prying eyes forever and ever and ever. I don't think the NSA was ever involved with UFO report but you never know. It seemed like nobody was really interested at the time. It took them two months to get Chase to fill out a UFO report! One would think if the NSA were involved, Chase would be the one guy they would have talked to about it or had him keep quiet. Instead, he was free to mention it to just about anyone, which is how the whole thing became a huge UFO event. He mentioned the incident during the Condon investigation and the rest is UFO history.

Personally, I don't trust anything that Sparks might say. He's already shown us that he's perfectly willing to invent "reasons" to fit his paranoid interests when he doesn't have the answers he wants in hand, and he's apparently unwilling to ask someone with more military experience than he actually possesses to explain a few things that he forgot to pick up on the way to the Apocalypse. I've got to admit, I'm a little sick of discovering that everybody who openly refers to himself or herself as a "UFOlogist" tend to share at least one notable quality: they love to invent out of nothing all of the little characteristics, motivations, and heavenly secret doorknock codes that the USAF and DoD use to keep the "real story" out of the public's prying, and over-interested little eyes without even once attempting to confirm those fun little details that must make life such a burdensome chore for the uninitiated, average man in the street -- you know, the couple of Americans who don't seem to know what a library card is. For God's sake, at least half of what he actually needs to figure things out is unclassified, but he's just too lazy to look for it.

I'm sure it would be asking for too much from God if maybe I sent in a FOIA request for anything on ground radar training missions for the week in question and immediately received in response a 60-page discussion of everything, from an explanation of Chase's flight plan to the testing of radar interference drones all on the date in question. Those fanatasies usually end with me laughing my ass off so hard that I can't find the cell phone to let somebody else know, at which point the laughs start to turn into me choking on a couple of krinkly fries I just pulled out of the oven, and when someone finally gets around to looking for my absent-from-work body, they just find me with bits of potato all over the kitchen floor, a delirious swooning grin on my face, 60-pages of training reports that were declassified in 1969 scattered all over the yellow linoleum, and one of the cats sitting on my chest in a Buddha pose, cleaning the kitty litter from between his toes, and looking up with an expression on his face that says merely, "what?"

And that's why I hate to use the phone for anything.

Cheers!
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 astrophotographer » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:20 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:Tim, any more email comments that you have been receiving concerning your article? I've been checking a couple of web sites, but quiet as of now.

Tim H.


No, I just had the exchange about the longitude thing. I am pursuing some possible ideas on this at the moment. It may take some time to figure this all out. When I was in the Navy, we were told to train the way we fight. The general idea I get is that, for training missions on RB-47s, this was not the case. Instead, they trained so everything was easy so they used round number longitude and latitude paths. At least this appears to be the argument. This is why Sparks claimed they had to have crossed the coast at 89.00000000000000000000000 degrees longitude and could not be a second of longitude off. As I previously stated, the CPS-6B was at 88.95 degrees, which is not very far from 89.0. It would not have taken much for the plane to have drifted a few miles and now they were over or to the east of the radar.
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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:41 pm

Just added Tim's SUNlite link in a short intro on my blog site. Lately, I've been averaging about 30 views per day which is pretty good for my little niche blog and figured that those individuals should have access to Tim's fine work.

Tim

ETA: Initially, Frank Warren, was slow to update his site's SUNlite link, though mine is updated automatically. Now, I'm almost certain that yesterday he had updated the SUNlite link to include the RB-47 story, now it's missing...or omitted? Anybody else see what I thought I saw?
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 » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:55 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:Just added Tim's SUNlite link in a short intro on my blog site. Lately, I've been averaging about 30 views per day which is pretty good for my little niche blog and figured that those individuals should have access to Tim's fine work.

Tim

ETA: Initially, Frank Warren, was slow to update his site's SUNlite link, though mine is updated automatically. Now, I'm almost certain that yesterday he had updated the SUNlite link to include the RB-47 story, now it's missing...or omitted? Anybody else see what I thought I saw?


I don't pay much attention to Warren's site. It loads too slow (like Kimball's) because of all the bells and whistles he has on his website. I know he lists the latest edition in the sidebar somewhere but that is about it.
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 James Carlson » Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:34 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:Initially, Frank Warren, was slow to update his site's SUNlite link, though mine is updated automatically. Now, I'm almost certain that yesterday he had updated the SUNlite link to include the RB-47 story, now it's missing...or omitted? Anybody else see what I thought I saw?

I'm not at all surprised; Warren and company -- incl. Salas, Hastings, and Cox -- have ALL done this in the past, and it's been confirmed. You'll be allowed to raise issues and present arguments to shut you up on a temporary basis, but eventually, none of it gets archived and nothing is allowed to trump his authors' assessments, which will make claims and present as proven fact a number of points that you have already shown to be completely false, none of which, however, will remain to stain those archives they have any control over.

I know I keep saying this, like an old bleating goat in the field, but they are very consciously trying to establish a message of paranoia and fear, and they will brook no protest in relation to that goal. I'm positive that Kean is part of the same group, and it's very likely that other authors in Warren's stable are also involved. I'm pretty positive as well that James Klotz used to be very much involved, an assessment that I originally suspected after trying to work through the ramifications of Project Mask, but was ultimately convinced of after reading Fowler's files on Malmstrom AFB, some of Salas' communications, and Hastings' flowery thanks at the front of his book -- although I admit, I'm not completely convinced that he is still actively involved in the prosecution of this resolute point of view. I'm also pretty certain that Fowler is not involved in this at all, although he's certainly been duped by the claims these people have made. The point is, they all have very sad goals necessitating the production of a blatantly dishonest point of view and the aggressive manipulation of their paranoid message. If they have control over the presentation of any counter-arguments to that singular position, you can be assured that it will either disappear, or it will be edited down to sound like offensive claptrap from a madman. They are not honest, they will remove your arguments, and the final archive of their work will sound more convincing as a result of this manipulative strategy.
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 Tim Hebert » Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:03 am

Tim, just pulled up Kimball's website. Have you looked at it?

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 James Carlson » Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:18 am

what's his url?
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. » Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:41 pm

James Carlson wrote:what's his url?

Hello,
http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/
Gilles
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 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:53 pm

Yes, I happened to see it last night. I am sort of disappointed in Mr. Kimball. If you recall in our private communications, I stated that he had contacted me with the challenge to skeptics. I originally wasn't interested in looking at this old case simply because I felt there was no benefit in rehashing the same old arguments. If Mr. Kimball does not want his name mentioned at all, he should just step away and not bother to initiate such e-mails. If I recall correctly, he made similar comments in the past on the UFO Iconoclasts blog when they mentioned RB-47. I believe his reference to the second e-mail must be when I asked him about Moody's investigation into Imbrogno and why any reference to Imbrogno had been removed from Kimball's blog after the revelations were made public. In that comment in SUNlite, I stated he did not want to publicly comment about it. After all, this was UFO news and felt I should bring it up. I just wasn't going to ignore it. I also remember mentioning that he had placed his film up for all to view on a web site. I am not sure if there were any other e-mails from him that I mentioned.

In my initial drafts, I simply referred to him as a "UFO promoter" but then I began to rethink it after some comments were made that most people could read between the lines and knew I was talking about Kimball. After thinking about it, I felt that I could see no reason not to mention his name and referring to him as a "UFO promoter" might put him in the same category with Friedman and Hastings. That may have been a bit harsh. However, if you pay attention to some of the blogs he has commented on, he is the one that was pushing this case out there and challenging skeptics to answer it. I am not sure why he wouldn't want me to mention his name that he had done the same in a private e-mail. I did not directly quote him and if he felt that I had taken his comments out of context, then I will gladly give a retraction in my next issue. Instead, he is complaining that I mentioned his name at all. What a strange individual.

As for the rest of his comments they are his opinion. I am not interested in "opinions". I am interested in information. I am still trying to pursue the issue about longitudes. Just as an aside, I managed to contact Tom Hanley's son. Hanley senior was the navigator on the flight. Unfortunately, he had passed away last fall. His son told me that his father rarely discussed the incident and that what was out there was pretty much it. It was a shame that the issues concerning navigation on the flight weren't ever asked of him (at least not to our knowledge).
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 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:23 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Yes, I happened to see it last night. I am sort of disappointed in Mr. Kimball

I further read his comments on the UFO Iconoclast site which he casually lumped you in with Sparks and Klass regarding the RB-47 case, yet no further discussion concerning your work. I'm wondering if he thought that you would actually tackle the case or just let it hang out there. It came across as "damning with faint praise" as far as what Kimball had wrote on his site.

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 » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:45 pm

As I said, they are opinions. I am more interested in information that might clear up certain issues with the case. This is a hobby for me like my astronomy and photography. I have little desire to pursue it much further than that.

This issue was meant to demonstrate several things:

1) The data is not as concrete as everyone claims. A lot of it is anecdotal and subject to error. That data, which came from 1957 documents is contradictory in some cases and, in other cases, inaccurate.

2) One can interpret the data differently. The proponents see an "unknown intelligence" radiated S-band radar signals from an unknown light in the sky that appeared to move about over the Fort Worth/Dallas area and was tracked by the Duncanville radar. The skeptics (including me) see an unidentified light, which could have been a plane or something else mundane, and the interception of S-band signals from various radars in the area. The Duncanville radar contact may or may not have been the visual target. There is no way to confirm this and it seems that they could have been seeing ghosts, AP, or something else that produced the returns that were mentioned.

The bottom line is that while UFOlogists think the data is concrete enough to consider it the best evidence, it really isn't that convincing. If you presented this all to an independent panel of scientists and experts, who are not committed on the subject, I think they would come up with a similar conclusion that I reached. They might even be able to come up with some different mundane interpretations. As I have continuously stated in SUNlite, UFOlogists need to move on and find ways to get better data to make their case (that is basically what I stated in the "UFOlogy drops the ball" section). This rehashing of old cases can be exhausting and nothing gets resolved. I am sure you have seen the same with the Echo/Oscar stuff.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron