ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th May 2011, 11:42 PM   #41
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Access Denied View Post
Actually, that was the initial explanation, subsequently changed to unidentified… for reasons I would suggest should be become more clear given the nature of the alternative explanation.

Yes, it was the initial explanation, and I pointed this out too in my second post, but thanks for highlighting it again.


Actually, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt (head of Project BLUE BOOK at the time), working with Dr. J. Allen Hynek (the consultant to Project SIGN who rejected the Venus explanation at the time), was the one who first suggested that explanation in 1952. The position of NICAP (like Vallée) throughout it’s history was that the government was covering up evidence of ET visitation so I’m not surprised if you were lead to believe the following by consulting their material…

It seems that NICAP and Vallee believed to my mind that yes, the government were covering up "something", and I happen to agree with them. However, they were covering up secret projects concerning man-made made objects in this case, and inevitably, as I indicated in my first post, this can lead to wider conspiracy theories.


See above, the official explanation was never changed to Skyhook… it remained listed as Unidentified by the Air Force at the close of Project BLUE BOOK in 1969. In fact, even the Condon Report (that mercifully got the Air Force out of the UFO business) had this to say about the balloon explanation…

“This explanation, though plausible, is not a certain identification.”

When is an identification concerning an elusive aerial object ever "certain", unless it is actually caught and returned to the ground for scrutiny? The Skyhook explanation is the best and most likely explanation, but nothing more than that.


Ridiculed by who, UFOlogists? I don’t know about you but I have to admit some of the witness descriptions do sound vaguely like a misidentified celestial object…

The NICAP report did refer to some of the witness descriptions which could have been Venus viewed in daylight which was very bright at the time and could just be seen apparently setting close to the horizon during the incident. They did not directly correspond to the Mantell incident in any meaningful way due to timing and location of the sighting.

OK, the word "ridicule" was rather strong, but certainly there was embarrassment over the Venus explanation, whether or not they believed that Skyhook was a better explanation.


Mantell UFO incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident


Can you say Catch 22?

AD
Explorer
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2011, 12:44 AM   #42
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
Yes, it was the initial explanation, and I pointed this out too in my second post, but thanks for highlighting it again.
Perhaps you missed my point? The point was you failed to point out the case was carried as UNIDENTIFIED.

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
OK, the word "ridicule" was rather strong, but certainly there was embarrassment over the Venus explanation, whether or not they believed that Skyhook was a better explanation.
What evidence do you have that anybody was embarrassed?
__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2011, 02:01 AM   #43
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Access Denied View Post
Perhaps you missed my point? The point was you failed to point out the case was carried as UNIDENTIFIED.

Not according to the NICAP report. As the report is presented as a pdf document I could not C&P the relevant paragraphs, but if you have the time you can read it for yourself here:

http://www.nicap.org/docs/mantell/an...ell_randle.pdf



What evidence do you have that anybody was embarrassed?

If you read page 13 of 35, you will see that the offical investigators changed their minds, about Venus as the explanation, on several occasions. In the end they said that Mantell was chasing a balloon.

Now for me, that is quite sufficient evidence to suggest that they had an embarrassing scenario. They probably did not actually announce embarrassment, which perhaps is the definitive evidence that you are seeking, but would you expect them to? The chopping and changing of an explanation always indicates in my mind, indecision, and indecision always infers incompetence, and to be the subject of incompetence directly or indirectly, is an embarrassment.

If you disagree with the relevant elements of the NICAP report, then please provide your own evidence to support that disagreement. I am quite willing to be convinced otherwise.

Explorer
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2011, 11:23 PM   #44
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
If you disagree with the relevant elements of the NICAP report, then please provide your own evidence to support that disagreement. I am quite willing to be convinced otherwise.
Well, I don’t believe you and I don’t really have the time to do your homework for you but for what it’s worth, here’s what it says on page 13 of the “analysis” published by NICAP that you cited and was written by Kevin Randle…

[coauthor of two books on Roswell that promoted a number of fraudulent “witnesses”]
“In 1952, a major magazine wanted to print an article about how spectacular UFO sightings had been explained through proper research and investigation. Because the spin of the article was that flying saucers did not exist, the Pentagon cooperated with the writer and the magazine. High-ranking Air Force officers assured the magazine editors that Mantell had chased Venus. In a move that was sure to anger the reporter and the magazine editor, week after the magazine was published, the Air Force released a new answer. Mantell had chased a balloon.”
This appears to be a reference to Sidney Shallet's articles in the April 30 and May 7, 1949 issues of the Saturday Evening Post however this is what the official April 27, 1949 “Memorandum to the Press” actually said about the case…

PROJECT "SAUCER"
http://www.project1947.com/fig/projsauc.htm
“Subsequent investigation revealed that Mantell had probably blacked out at 20,000 feet from lack of oxygen and had died of suffocation before the crash.

The mysterious object which the flyer chased to his death was first identified as the Planet Venus. However, further probing showed the elevation and azimuth readings of Venus and the object at specified time intervals did not coincide.

It is still considered ‘Unidentified’.
Now compare that to what Ruppelt said in his book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects published in 1956 after he left the Air Force…

Chapter Three: The Classics
http://www.nicap.org/rufo/rufo-03.htm
“About a year later [after the incident – AD] the Air Force released its official report on the incident. To use a trite term, it was a masterpiece in the art of "weasel wording." It said that the UFO might have been Venus or it could have been a balloon. Maybe two balloons. It probably was Venus except that this is doubtful because Venus was too dim to be seen in the afternoon.”
A careful reading of Randle’s “analysis” reveals this “official report” is actually a reference to the “conclusion” of one of the investigators (who was obviously well versed in astronomy) and clearly it was inconclusive and consistent with the official “explanation” (unidentified) given to the press prior to it’s release despite UFOlogist’s claims to the contrary. In fact it actually says at one point…
“It has been unofficially reported that the object was a Navy cosmic ray balloon. If this can be established, it is to be preferred as an explanation.”
In his book Ruppelt then goes on to claim (anecdotally) that some (unidentified) Major at the Pentagon who had nothing to do with the investigation was responsible for the “official” explanation allegedly given to the press a year later in conjunction with the early 1949 Saturday Evening Post article that what Mantell had chased was “positively” identified as Venus but then he states that in 1952 (while he was head of Project BLUE BOOK and was asked to look into the case by the Pentagon) Hynek took the blame for the alleged Venus explanation…
“He had been responsible for the weasel worded report that the Air Force released in late 1949, and he apologized for it. Had he known that it was going to cause so much confusion, he said, he would have been more specific. He thought the incident was a dead issue. The reason that Venus had been such a strong suspect was that it was in almost the same spot in the sky as the UFO.”
If there’s any doubt that Ruppelt went off the rails after he left the Air Force (or was simply pandering to the ET huggers for profit and making it up as he went along) he also claims (again without evidence) that…
“I talked with one of the people who had been in on the Mantell investigation. The possibility of a balloon's causing the sighting had been mentioned but hadn't been followed up for two reasons. Number one was that everybody at ATIC was convinced that the object Mantell was after was a spaceship and that this was the only course they had pursued. When the sighting grew older and no spaceship proof could be found, everybody jumped on the Venus band wagon, as this theory had "already been established." It was an easy way out. The second reason was that a quick check had been made on weather balloons and none were in the area. The big skyhook balloon project was highly classified at that time, and since they were all convinced that the object was of interplanetary origin (a minority wanted to give the Russians credit), they didn't want to bother to buck the red tape of security to get data on skyhook flights.”
Caveat emptor.

As further evidence that the case was carried as unidentified all along, from a newspaper clipping in the Project BLUE BOOK files, here’s what the Air Force said on January 9, 1948 (2 days after the incident) as reported in the Dayton Daily News

Footnote Viewer: Project Bluebook Investigations: Year: 1948 Month: January Location (Incident #): Wilmington, Ohio (#48) Page: Page 46
http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669831
“The Air Base late yesterday issued a formal statement on the matter, but, a spokesman said, officials there still had no idea of what it was or what it might mean.”
And here’s what an April 7, 1952 article in LIFE magazine said about the case…

HAVE WE VISITORS FROM SPACE?
http://www.project1947.com/shg/csi/life52.html
“Buried in the heap of hysterical reports were some sobering cases. One was the calamity that befell Air Force Captain Thomas F. Mantell on Jan. 7, 1948. That afternoon Mantell and two other F-51 fighter pilots sighted an object that looked like "an ice-cream cone topped with red" over Godman Air Force Base and Fort Knox, Ky. Mantell followed the strange object up to 20,000 feet and disappeared. Later in the day his body was found in a nearby field, the wreckage of his plane scattered for a half mile around. It now seems possible that Mantell was one of the very few witness's who actually were deceived by a Skyhook balloon, but the incident is still listed as unsolved by the Air Force files.”
Now, can you please show us where the Air Force (not UFOlogists) publicly claimed it was Venus and then changed it to a balloon because they were “embarrassed” by the resulting “ridicule” as you claimed?

AD
__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2011, 01:16 AM   #45
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
"Now, can you please show us where the Air Force (not UFOlogists) publicly claimed it was Venus and then changed it to a balloon because they were “embarrassed” by the resulting “ridicule” as you claimed?"

Thank you for the effort you have put in AD.

I have already dealt with the word "ridiculed" in my previous post, and I did NOT claim that the Air Force changed the Venus explanation to Skyhook because they were embarassed. I said that the early and inconsistent Venus explanation was the embarrassment, as defined in my post, I will not repeat again what I said on that subject. They changed the explanation to Skyhook in the light of new evidence, and they would have added insult to injury if they had failed to do that.

The early Venus explanation was absurd, and before releasing an immediate statement, more consideration should have been given to the incident (after all a pilot died) as was done eventually, and as you cited above, two days later.

As for the case remaining unidentified, we are playing with semantics here. Again, I have to repeat what I have said before. The Skyhook was the best explanation, and short of catching a piece of it and subjecting it to analysis on the ground, cases like this will always be unidentified, or "unsolved", as your clip stated.

Last edited by Explorer; 14th May 2011 at 01:22 AM.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2011, 06:25 AM   #46
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 338
[sigh]

As expected, Explorer completely ignored the evidence to the contrary...

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
I said that the early and inconsistent Venus explanation was the embarrassment…
What “early and inconsistent” Venus explanation? Evidence of the official press release or statements made by officials please.

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
They changed the explanation to Skyhook in the light of new evidence…
When? Evidence of the official press release or statements made by officials please.

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
The early Venus explanation was absurd, and before releasing an immediate statement…
Again, what “early” Venus explanation, and what “immediate” statement? Evidence of the official press release or statements made by officials please.

If you can’t produce the evidence to back up your assertions, your opinion of what the Air Force should or shouldn’t have done is worthless.


ETA: Report concerning Public Information release of 8 January 1948.
A purely local release of information was made by the Public Information of this Station relating only what observers reported to Public Information concerning the appearance of what was termed a "sky phenomena".
__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.

Last edited by Access Denied; 14th May 2011 at 06:49 AM.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2011, 09:01 AM   #47
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Wink

Originally Posted by Access Denied View Post
[sigh]

As expected, Explorer completely ignored the evidence to the contrary...

But you said you didn't know me, you can't have both ways!


What “early and inconsistent” Venus explanation? Evidence of the official press release or statements made by officials please.


When? Evidence of the official press release or statements made by officials please.

Do you then simply deny that the Air Force EVER proferred the Venus explanation in the early stages?


Again, what “early” Venus explanation, and what “immediate” statement? Evidence of the official press release or statements made by officials please.

If you can’t produce the evidence to back up your assertions, your opinion of what the Air Force should or shouldn’t have done is worthless.

.... and that is your opinion, which of course, you are entitled to. I feel the NICAP report is sufficiently credible to back my "assertions", plus this reference to the incident in Wikipaedia:

"Though Project Sign's staff never came to a conclusion, other Air Force investigators ruled that Mantell had misidentified the planet Venus, ..."

So there was also disagreement within the ranks. More cause for embarrassment?



ETA: Report concerning Public Information release of 8 January 1948.
A purely local release of information was made by the Public Information of this Station relating only what observers reported to Public Information concerning the appearance of what was termed a "sky phenomena".
I do not propose to continue responding on this subject, as I detect a tone of irritated impatience in your posts. Whereas there is nothing wrong with that emotion, I find in general that threads displaying this quality from one or more posters deteriorate in quality and can lead to unpleasant and personal exchanges.

Anyway thanks for your interesting, if not provocative, contributions.

Explorer
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2011, 12:09 PM   #48
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 338
You ask for evidence and I present it and you ignore it. I then ask you for evidence and you ignore that too. Am I irritated? Nope, par for the course…

Suit yourself.

That said, I would encourage others who may be interested to take a look at the official (75 page) case file on the actual Mantell incident itself starting here…

[not to be confused with the file on the numerous sightings in nearby Ohio later that same day]

Footnote Viewer: Project Bluebook Investigations: Year: 1948 Month: January Location (Incident #): Godman AFB, Ken. (#33) Page: Page 1
http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669879

Of particular interest regarding the alleged “preferred” explanation…

http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669904
http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669903
http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669898
http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669897
http://www.footnote.com/image/#9669896

AD
__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2011, 02:30 PM   #49
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
The problem is that some will insist it could not have been Venus.
much more likely to have been "Ate" the Goddess of Evil and Misfortune
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2011, 05:48 PM   #50
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Blame it on her mom. She seems to be very fond on poking woos.

But she's hot, too. So...
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.