UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, January 10, 2013

UFO Iconoclast(s) addenda

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.


Here are two of the Lubbock Light(s) photos:

lubbock1.jpg

lubbock2.jpg

These are not plovers (or birds of any kind).

The images may not be UFOs or they might even be hoaxed, but one thing is certain -- the images are not plovers (or birds) reflecting the light from street lamps.

The plover/bird explanation is ludicrous on the face of it.

Here are some photos of a flying disk taken by George Stock in New Jersey, 1952:

stock1.jpg

stock2.jpg

stock3.jpg

You can see the similarity to the Trent/McMinnville disk (1950), and even more so to the Redbud, Illinois disk photo (1950).

Are the photos an instance of fakery? Or were flying disks of the type pictured common to the time-frame (the early 1950s)?

Operation MainBrace (1952):

While there are photos, squirreled away by the U.S. military, the thrust of that 1952 event consists of several sightings: one where photos were taken from aboard an aircraft carrier, one by RAF jet fighters the following day, and one over Topliffe, an RAF base, the disk or sphere pursued by a jet interceptor.

That a balloon explanation for the sightings seems irrational, there are few other options that are rational.

If the photos taken remain hidden, the nature of the UFO (or balloon) cannot be determined, but it seems that the disks photographed by Paul Trent, the Redbud photographer, and George Stock morphed into a balloon-like sphere.

That is, the phenomenon changed or other flying intruders were circling the globe.

RR

42 Comments:

  • There are glaring errors in this article. The gentleman who photographed the UFO in Redbud, IL was named Dean Morgan not Dr. Trent. Further, Mr. Morgan resided in East St. Louis, IL not Redbud. Mr. Morgan photographed the object in 1950 not 1952. Mr. Morgan was pursuing his hobby of wildlife photography in Redbud when he sighted the object. I resided in this area and this story within this context makes perfect sense.

    By Blogger ffkling, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Hello,

    My French RL friend "Nablator" suggested the child (regarding the photo I mean) used a "mask" with holes (ie in paper / carton) and a light source "backside", or someting like this as "trickery".

    Despite his rumination are more complete in French, he posted something in the "infamous" ATS forum a comment regarding his hypothesis:

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread906605/pg1#pid15504557

    The comment in French are here in our top (^^) French UFO-Skepticism forum (sarting in #16 reply):
    http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t2635p15-les-lumieres-de-lubbock#43542

    It could be cool to have your erudit feed-backs.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Ffkling:

    The post indicates only the Redbud photographer, among the three listed, separated by a comma.

    The Redbud photo is listed here as taken in 1950.

    Where do you read 1952?

    Is your computer monitor okay?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Gilles...

    You mean the Lubbock photos, right?

    That could be how the photos were made.

    But, again, the plover suggestion is just plain stupid.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Yeah, the Lubbock ones.

    I dont think pluvers/birds hypothesis so stupid (anecdoct, I have been myself 3s abused by a V birds migration flight reflecting lights and "pulsating cause the moove of the flying, impressive!). I mean regarding W. I. Robinson, A. G. Oberg et W. L. Ducker august 1951 of the Texas Technical College.

    Isaac Koi furnished one Ruppelt's correspondance in one bibliographical study (maybe Mister Koi reads us):
    In "Captain Edward J Ruppelt : Summer of the Saucers - 1952" (2000) Michael David Hall and Wendy Ann Connors refer to research by David Wheeler identifying the mysterious scientist as Professor Ducker. Their book suggests that "Ducker had had conversations with Ruppelt in later years and told him that he conclusively proved their UFO sightings were caused by birds. In fact, these author's have recently discovered this correspondence in Ruppelt's personal papers." (The relevant observation at page 35 is part of the discussion of the Lubbock Lights in that book at pages 30-31, 32-35 (in Chapter 1), 65, 74 (in Chapter 2), 245 (in the unnumbered chapter entitled "Final Word - The Forgotten Correspondence of Edward Ruppelt") of the Rose Press softcover edition.)

    I not fully understand who is the subject in "told him that he conclusively proved their UFO sightings were caused by birds". Ducker or Ruppelt?
    I suppose it is Ducker, so this hypothesis doesn't appear as so stupid, if one the witness seems to have conclude/conclusively proved it was the case (supposely seeing again such a sighting and identifying birds that time? or something like this?)

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Gilles:

    The bird scenario is ludicrous.

    Plovers and other migratory birds do not fly in the formation shown.

    And the birds would not be migrating at the end of summer in Texas, maybe late Fall but not August or September.

    You've bought into the bogus (explained away) scenario that the AF encouraged.

    The street lamps in Lubbock have shields over their tops, so the lights shone down, not up.

    The images are too distinct to be reflective images, and much too bright.

    The plover/bird explanation is just too stupid and I'm surprised that you think it's a rationale for the photos -- which may be hoaxed, but are not of birds!

    Be skeptical, mon ami, but not irrational....that offends me intellectually.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Wait Rich.
    I distinguish(ed) clearly in my mind (and above in the comments, but my english sucks maybe)
    a) Carl Hart Jr photographies (alleged end of August 1951), which "I" provided one hypothesis for a trickery above, made by my friend "Nablator)
    AND

    b) The Professors W. I. Robinson, A. G. Oberg et W. L. Duckersighting sightings (from 25 August if I'm correct).

    For the second one, I cant exclude birds (and for many birds, August marks the beginning of migration and a return to their wintering grounds BTW, I regret Rich).

    I dunno if Ducker endorsed USAF explanation, but the sentence "HE conclusively proved their UFO sightings were caused by birds". If it is Ducker the "he", it seems he concluded it by himself, and not endorsed dunno what.

    The street lamps objection is not enough for me, you seem to KNOW perfectly all street lamps in Lubbock 1951 and all potential light sources which could provide (or not) a potential reflexive input to potential birds flying in formation. That's cool, but free assertions, sorry.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Rich: "That a balloon explanation for the sightings seems irrational, there are few other options that are rational."

    In BB, a record dated "6 Nov 52" reads "Aerological balloon with radar reflector launched from Roosevelt shortly before picture taken."

    However, another record date-stamped "24 Oct 52" reads "Litwin determined from weather officer aboard Roosevelt that weather balloon was not released at that time. Request a check to determine if any other ship in the formation released a balloon..."

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Gilles,

    Birds in Texas, in August/September are not about to start their migratory treks.

    The plover explanation is an insult to intelligence.

    Your "how the kid created the photos" explanation is probable to my way of thinking.

    But we're just ruminating here so let's not see anything personal in my griping about what you and CDA see as plausible -- the plover story.

    But that story is and remains just plain goofy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Don:

    AS I find the story, in various configurations, no balloons were launched by anyone, at the time or even near the time.

    The other occurrences I note indicate that a balloon explanation is a real stretch.

    The military (NATO too) wanted to quell this event.

    It's significant but, again, so far back in time that it is irrelevant to the final denouement of the UFO enigma.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • But Rich,

    It seems you are confusing or keeping in my mouth or mind what I have not.

    There are birds in Texas (or?). There are birds in Texas in August, or?
    If the birds explanation if correct, it have not as correlat "birds in migration".

    BTW, I dont remember the professors made a statment the formation was in V-Shape or dunno what we must extend/conclude/propose/think about to "hoo, a MIGRATION bird's formation as possible candidat?".
    No, it could be birds formation ("only"), not obligatory birds in migration.

    My remark was just intended because you seem to believe and to object bird migration starts in Summer. No, for many species, it starts in August.

    And you are silent to the "In "Captain Edward J Ruppelt : Summer of the Saucers - 1952" (2000) Michael David Hall and Wendy Ann Connors refer to research by David Wheeler identifying the mysterious scientist as Professor Ducker. Their book suggests that "Ducker had had conversations with Ruppelt in later years and told him that he conclusively proved their UFO sightings were caused by birds. In fact, these author's have recently discovered this correspondence in Ruppelt's personal papers."

    And sorry, "bird is an insult to intelligence", "stupid", etc. have none value as argument. Many UFO sightings have been or are birds, and birds can fool/suprise people, I regret, in migration or not.
    You dont accept the birds explanation, that's your right. I dont exclude it, which is mine :) I dont see any decisive argument elimating a bird formation in your "requisitory" excepting called it a stupid explanation or an insult to intelligence. what else?

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Gilles:

    It's Texas....and in August or September, birds are not migrating.

    Moreover, the v-formation for plovers and most birds, except geese, is ornithologically wrong.

    You are familiar with ornithology, no?

    But after all is said and done, the Lubbock Lights bring us no closer to an explanation of what the UFO phenomenon is or was.

    I merely added the addendum because the photos were brought up in another context here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Have a look at the paperback "Project Blue Book, the top secret UFO findings revealed", edited by Brad Steiger, chapter 4 (entitled "The mystery of the Lubbock Lights").

    This gives over 20 pages of analysis and discussion of the case, which began on August 25 and continued into mid-October, and involved quite a number of witnesses besides the four college professors.

    Yes, plovers were indeed discussed, among other things.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Old UFO photos are interesting not because they allow us to solve the mystery but because they are all well before digital manipulation. I've always been interested in the five George Stock photos since they are very clear and tell a sequential story. Stock (a lawnmower repair guy)allegedly saw the object approaching; yelled to his father to bring out the camera (2 witnesses here); snapped 7 B&W shots (whatever happened to the two lost shots?); estimated the size at 20-25 feet in diameter and only 200 feet in the air, traveling very slowly. Again, as with the Heflin photos, there aren't many alternative explanations here. Either Stock hoaxed the photos somehow or it's some unconventional flying object. Can anyone add any substance or additional details to this story?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • CDA:

    We are plover-watchers, at our lake places and Florida condo.

    They don't fly in formation, the little things.

    And they are so quaint that any idea they could reflect street lamp lighting as strongly as that registered on the photos strains credulity.

    That they were discussed means nothing.

    You and Gilles have got to drop the matter.

    Using it as a skeptical ploy destroys your credibility.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Dominick;

    The New Jersey photos intrigue, but where do they take us?

    I, as you, like old UFO photographs, since they required an ingenuity to fake, not like the ease of Photoshop.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Rich,

    Let me add a few more details to my George Stock story above. First, the photos were developed quickly and locally, then taken to a local newspaper where they were determined to not be a hoax, and published less than a week later in something called the "Morning Call" in Patterson, N.J. Other witnesses to the Stock UFO were discovered in roughly the same neighborhood. Second, after the photos were published, Stock was allegedly contacted by a George Wertz of the OSI (Office of Strategic Intelligence)and, after much badgering, turned over all 7 negatives to Wertz. Six months later Wertz returned 5 of the negatives...hence the missing two shots. Finally, Stock eventually turned over those 5 negatives to August C. Roberts, a professional free lance reporter and photographer (and collector of UFO photos). What became of those negatives after that is undetermined.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Roberts is listed as the source of the photos in the magazine I culled them from.

    I'd like to see the two missing photos.

    I don't know why people were so trusting in the 50s, giving photos to agencies and people who purloined them or "lost" them.

    There were scalawags in the 50s.

    But, again, Dominick, the photos don't take us to the core of the phenomenon.

    They merely tease.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Rich: "Are the photos an instance of fakery? Or were flying disks of the type pictured common to the time-frame (the early 1950s)"

    I think that style becomes common early in the 1950s, assuming it is a large dome on a disk. I've noted three types: the rounded dome (or sombrero), the flattened dome (or fedora), and Adamski's architectural cathedral dome.

    In the 1940s, the most common shape, assuming the various elliptical shapes (football shape etc) were disks, was the coin-like disk (often scalloped, so not fully circular). If it had a structure topside, it was not large, more a cockpit. I call it the Air Force Spec.

    For example, Rhodes "cockpit" or "greenhouse", Smith, Stevens, Morrow "rough" on top, and Anderson and McManneman "faceted" or diamond-like on top. The circle atop Arnold's batwing drawing is of that type.

    In the 40s, the drawing of the Snake River ufo is a "fedora" and the earliest I've found.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Don:

    The fedora shape is Rhodes? Or is his the sombrero?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Neither. He described a "cockpit" (CIC report) and "greenhouse" (FBI report), which fits with "faceted", "diamond-like", and "rough".

    Rhodes' object (as well as Arnold's and others) had leading and trailing edges oriented like a Horten Parabola, the reverse of the common ARUP or Flying Flapjack. That's what Rhodes meant when he said it seemed to be flying backwards.

    The point being, the 40s saucers, if they had a structure topside, it was not a large dome, but instead cockpit-like. Snake River is the earliest fedora style I've found. Heflin's is a flattened dome, a fedora, and maybe Trent's.

    The classic saucer shape a large dome on a disk appears in the early 50s -- with one in the 1940s, the Snake River ufo.

    If I'm being 'obscure' let me know. I'm recovering from the flu.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Don:

    You're rather coherent for a guy with the flu.

    Now, me and Bruce, we're obscure when we don't have the flu.

    Thanks for the info.

    Get well soon, and take it easy.

    This flu thing is pretty bad this year; media people here are dropping like flies.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biases_in_judgment_and_decision_making

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Maybe the longest lived ufo shape is the two pie pans one. It goes back to the 47 wave and is probably being seen today.

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Don, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Rich -

    I attempt to stay out of these things but I can't let some of this go.

    Gilles -

    There is a single migratory bird in the Lubbock, Texas area in late August, early September and that is the Glossy Ibis, a dark-breasted duck (according to the Range and Wildlife Management Office at Texas Tech). It could not have been photographed from the ground at night... the reflections (if there were any) would be too dim to be seen. The photographer at the local newspaper was unable to photograph birds from the roof of the newspaper office building in downtown Lubbock.

    Birds is simply not a viable explanation here. Attempts to duplicate it at the time failed.

    All -

    I interviewed Carl Hart, Jr., in the mid-1990s. He was in his 60s then. No longer a teenager, and no longer fearing prosecution for perpetrating a hoax in 1951 he told me then, "I don't know what I photographed." Unlike others, who as teenagers, created hoaxes and then admitted them much later, Hart didn't do that. He seemed as perplexed today as he was in 1951.

    For the skeptics out there, Hart didn't mean that he thought he had photographed alien craft, just that he didn't know what it was. I'm with Hart on this but will say, that it was not birds.

    By Blogger KRandle, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Thanks, Kevin...

    I'm with you all the way on this.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 11, 2013  

  • Part 1/2: Of course, many pro-HET ufologists will reject birds for the professors sightings... One more time, I dont mixe the Hart pictures and the professor sightings.

    a) Concerning Kevin, you opinion about if a guy/witnesse could be an hoaxer or not, no offense, but you know what I have in mind. That's not in order to hyper-criticize sincerly, but you have been already duped by witnesses (as any of us could be, not you only). So allow me to take your opinion with "caution".

    I have a question too about two the pictures and concerning the homothetic relations between them. That's intriguing (then the mask hypothesis). See later in my comment.

    b) Concerning the birds:
    b1) I'm aware that of the 900 different bird species in the U.S., 600 of them are found in Texas, making it one of the top birding place of the USA.
    b2) The professors seem to state the flight path of the objects seen was North to South (see this document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lubbock_Lights_1.gif ), and birds migration pathway over USA and Texas in particulary (central pathway of birds) is North to South too as already stated (ie see http://www.birdnature.com/allflyways.html ). That's intriguing too, sorry.
    I discovered too yesterday the Ibis. There exist probably other candidats to examine. But ufologists (as me) are not ornithologists ;)

    c) The professors seem to have witness "almost a perfect semi-circle of 20/30 "objects", and not a V-Formation. So, a formation of birds must be considered too, not necessary in migration.

    Personnaly then, I dont reject the bird possibility as you do, so fast, and will turn on ornithologists, if I can, to have "agnostic opinions". Maybe it is bad, maybe it is not. But allow me to say you seem to eliminate it so fast. It merits a closed examen, despite this hypothesis could be rejected or not.

    (continue)

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  


  • Part 2/2

    Concerning the Hart photographies, dunno if you looked on "Nablator" remarks, 2 of them are "perfectly" superposable. We have found the manual of 2 cameras Kodak 35 mm. and several other things :

    http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t2635p30-les-lumieres-de-lubbock#43568

    It seems there was not "spring driven power film advance", appearing on "MATIC" camera later probably. Dunno how or what Don think about it? I'm only a amateur concerning photography.

    You then need "seconds" to re-arm et you frame again for a second picture.

    Our problem is the particular "Homothetic transformation" between two the pictures (from where the "mask" hypothesis is coming from in Nablator mind) and it is intriguing us. Not you? See:

    Hart stated he taked the 2 "superposebale pictures" of the second wave :
    "Hart took two photographs of the second flight, and when the lights came back a third time, he took three more".

    So the objects have mooved between these two shoots, and it is waited a new "frame" between Hart re-arm the camera manualy, a new perspective, to be short.

    But the two pictures seems to have homotetic relations? That's intriguing... No? How do you explain it? See diagrams here:
    http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t2635p15-les-lumieres-de-lubbock#43542

    In essence, I dont reject the hoax hypothesis, as the birds one for the professors sightings, as some ufologists seem to aknowledge "fastly".
    Period, I will not more insist, but the hoax hypothesis for Hart's pictures and the birds possibility for the professor sightings are still in my table.

    ***
    Again, I'm intriguing too by the "research" made by Isaac koi concerning Ruppelt biography : "In "Captain Edward J Ruppelt : Summer of the Saucers - 1952" (2000) Michael David Hall and Wendy Ann Connors refer to research by David Wheeler identifying the mysterious scientist as Professor Ducker. Their book suggests that "Ducker had had conversations with Ruppelt in later years and told him that he conclusively proved their UFO sightings were caused by birds. In fact, these author's have recently discovered this correspondence in Ruppelt's personal papers." (The relevant observation at page 35 is part of the discussion of the Lubbock Lights in that book at pages 30-31, 32-35 (in Chapter 1), 65, 74 (in Chapter 2), 245 (in the unnumbered chapter entitled "Final Word - The Forgotten Correspondence of Edward Ruppelt") of the Rose Press softcover edition.) Intriguing me.

    Period.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • For those whose French aren't up to the task of reading the links Gilles has provided (I'm in that category), you can use Google translate to get a rough automatic translation of the pages. Here's how. Go to Google.com and click on the "More" located on the top menu line. From the drop down menu list, click "Translate" (it's at the top of the list). Paste the link you want to translate into the large left hand box, then click the blue rectangle labeled "Translate". Google will begin translating the entire page and will present you with the translated page when it's done in a few seconds.

    Or, if you're lazy, you can use these shortened URL to get the results:

    http://goo.gl/KfCDf is a translation of http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t2635p30-les-lumieres-de-lubbock#43568

    http://goo.gl/yelBG is a translation of http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t2635p15-les-lumieres-de-lubbock#43542

    By Blogger JAF, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • Gilles -

    We are talking at cross purposes. My comments referred only to the Hart photographs. Whatever they are, they are not birds. When I was in Lubbock, I talked to the various wildlife authorites there to make sure I understood this.

    The professors' sightings, according to notes Ruppelt left, and which I have seen, said that the professors were seeing fireflies... and no, I don't believe this.

    I do know that Ducker was annoyed with Hart because of the pictures. It was Ducker who called the newspaper the first night, and it was Ducker who remained interested in the sightings.

    It is clear that plover are responsible for a couple of the sightings but in those cases there were half a dozen objects and they were in no formation.

    Ruppelt, in another place (I believe Wendy Connors and Michael Hall may have found this) suggested moths as the answer.

    But we have two separate things here. First are the visual sightings and second are the photographs. Birds might solve most of the first but do not solve the second.

    By Blogger KRandle, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • It was Ruppelt himself who first suggested to the professors that the objects they had seen were birds reflecting street lights. They flatly rejected this answer.

    However Ducker later went to great lengths to investigate the objects and proved, to Ruppelt's satisfaction, that they were indeed birds, but Ducker insisted on remaining anonymous; hence Ruppelt knew the answer but modestly wanted to avoid giving the impression that he was right all along.

    This accounts for his 'moths' explanation which he gave in the revised edition of his book "Report on UFOs". Had he divulged the true solution (namely birds) in this revised edition, it might have given away Ducker's identity (his colleagues were apparently unaware of his extra work on the case).

    Having said the above, I agree that it is hardly a satisfactory ending to the Lubbock Lights affair, and the debate, for those still interested, will continue.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • I am shocked....I shouldn't be, but I am....

    The Lubbock Lights bird explanation is so errant on its face that I'm stunned at how you, CDA (sort of) and Gilles find so much to say about it.

    The bird part of a Lubbock Lights discussion should have been flushed at the outset of my post.

    The UFO phenomenon gets short shrift by "debaters" taking the topic to eccentric and often goofy footnotes.

    The Lubbock Lights might be hoax, but Kevin seems to refute that, or they are snapshots of something unique.

    That anyone who knows anything about bird patterns in flight and the physiology of plovers would see them as the cause of the images on the film is an example of psychopathic looniness.

    And some of you skeptical fellows presume to attack Randle or Bragalia for their methodologies and explanations?

    It's stupidity not skepticism or even flawed debunkery....it's sheer stupidity.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • See the Hall-Connors book, pages 30-35. Ducker proved to Ruppelt's satisfaction that the objects were birds.

    All right, you are free to reject that explanation. You can also reject the moths explanation, as I do.

    The sightings can therefore be unknowns. I have no particular answer myself, but am willing to accept what one of the original witnesses decided; they were plover. You can take solace that officially they are still unknowns, or so I believe.

    After all, we are all free to believe or disbelieve official explanations.

    Did you know that the original solution to the Mantell case (Venus) was actually suggested by a professional astronomer? (No it was not Hynek). Didn't last long as Venus, did it?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • That damn plover explanation, CDA, is, to me, like a red cape is to a bull.

    Ah, the Mantell case -- Venus, as an explanation made me crazy too.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 12, 2013  

  • Hello,

    Thank you Christopher to point (I did it third times I think already in the comments) that Ducker - one the Professors-witnesses - seems to have confirmed and prooved to Ruppelt they have been victims to "birds".

    Dunno why Ufologists refuse to examine and "take as face value" this point I discovered (Nablator in fact), as pointed above, in Isaac Koi excellent ressources site.

    To JAF and others: The hypothesis of a mask as "trickery" used by Hart and proposed to examen by my friend "Nablator" is "available" in English (despite less extent than in French). We are very intrigued by the fact two the photos of a same wave (following Hart) have homothetic relations (photo A + B with a rotation). How he could obtain it with his Kodak? That's why he pointed the possible use of a mask, with Holes and with a light source backside.
    So to Kevin, dunno where do you deduce I think the pictures are birds ones, due to the fact we have underligned the possibility of a mask...

    In English then: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread906605/pg1#pid15504557

    Concerning the birds, it could be not only pluvers, but several birds species in fly. Not all observations could have the same source and an ONLY conventionnal source. At least, one of them (observations) as been reported adopting a V-Formation, the professors spocke about almost a perfect semi-circle formation and the direction was North to South, evokating the pathway of birds in migration.
    And the Ibis specie Kevin spocked about adopts economic formation, including the "V" one (see wiki) (despite Rick want that only Gesse fly in "V"). But that's secondary.

    Concerning the street lamps (or light sources creating reflections): read it:

    "A few blocks from the area where most of the sightings had been made was a boulevard lighted by mercury vapor lights that gave off an intense bluish-white glare. Then I recalled an odd bit of information. When the professors had tried to set up a second observation post elsewhere, they saw nothing, while the sightings continued at the original spot - near the lighted boulevard."
    http://www.seektress.com/swim.htm

    But ufologists (read above the comments) refuse/reject possible particular conditions of light reflections due to the city lights or dunno what... Sorry, the fact it seems to exist a particular, ONE, and original spot for the Professors suggests the contrary imho.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • Gilles....

    Mon dieu!

    Let's say, for the sake of stupid argument, that the photos were of birds....does that solve the UFO enigma or explain what the UFO phenomenon is (or was)?

    You are spending an inordinate amount of time hashing a dead issue.

    The Lubbock Light(s) photos are curiosities -- that's all.

    They are intriguing to photographers and UFO aficionados who like UFO trivia or minutiae.

    You've become the "Skeptical Rudiak."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • Rich, you are jocking, or?

    1) WE ARE DEFENDING THE HART PICTURES COULD BE MADE WITH A MASK, THEN A POSSIBLE TRICKERY, due to the homothetic relations between the A & B pictures. Why do state again a bird hypothesis concerning the picture?? That's not serious and I have my dose of this.

    Or explain me with the angular speed alleged by Hart ( the lights had crossed about 120 degrees of open sky in four seconds), the litthe luminosity he allegued (same dull), read Ruppelt,

    HOW he have been however abble to shoot such two pictures with his Kodak 35, 2 pictures having such homotethic relations between?

    So why the photos A and B have such homothetic relations betweens, if the objects mooved so fast, and have such good contrast, if the lights were so less lighting ????

    2) I will not defend again the birds hypothesis for the professors sightings, because Ducker, one the witnesses did it himself. But you dont care... Bird is stupid cause you say it is...

    "You've become the "Skeptical Rudiak."

    OK, Adieu. No pb!

    I have enough time to allocate with our French forum and others places to not received you more and more ad hominem and personal attack (this is stupid, this is irrationnal, etc) without any counter-argumentation, when I only humblely presented arguments to examine without any ad hominem/personam attacks or bad atmosphere. But you now are constainly sending bad words for the start of the comments here. I'm zen, but after a moment, that's enough.

    If you are not interrested by THE FACT there are problems with Hart pictures, in particulary due to the homothetic relations between A & B pictures for objects allegued to moove so fast, as Ducker himself seems to have "prooved" to Ruppelt it was birds, well it seems you want to keep as "mysterious" things that others elements contradict and not interrested by conventionnal possibilities/hypothesis (stupid ones, of course).

    Normal, that's ufology.

    Adieu.

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • Gilles...

    Take it easy.

    I'm saying the argument is stupid, not you.

    Ufological debate is silly. You're taking it too seriously.

    You've become like Rudiak....a lot of words, wasted on something that doesn't matter.

    He's consumed by Mogul.

    You by plovers.

    Our friendship should allow for banter, without either of us taking it personally.

    I would think you'd be interested in why Drucker came to the bird explanation, after the fact.

    It's a psychological matter; he was trying to please Ruppelt. Why?

    (Drucker had a homoerotic attachment to Ruppelt?)

    So, again, take it easy.

    Since you (and CDA) want to clutter this blog with plover nonsense, you become fair game for my barbs.

    It's not personal. It's me trying to keep you fellows from chumming the postings here with clutter, as you do at Kevin's blog, which he allows.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • The whole subject seems like trying to start a wild fire with a book of wet matches. That all the subject managed to do was to inflame emotional word smiths over whether or not it's a bird. or it's a plane, or it's Superman also seems like a heat sink for the ambivalence of the image. Trying to make a pigs ear into a silk purse. It seems any rational discussion beyond "that's interesting" becomes entangled in engaging what we defend or mock based on the complete lack of substantiation for anything approaching the gravitas of a testable theory.
    If you take any of this too seriously, it's simply a merry go round of factoids that are deconstructive onto themselves like a three dimensional puzzle designed not to fit together with our referential dictionary of "solids"
    What I am saying is that the old standby of spacemen flying ships in circles over the planet remains a lot of barking up the wrong tree.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • I agree Bruce...

    The matters here are fluff and should be discussed accordingly.

    Spending time posting (me) and commenting (others) are endeavors of a foolish kind.

    But some of us have little else in our lives so we try to make something from nothing -- the Rumpelstiltskin approach to life.

    That some get overwrought baffles.

    After all, this is, as Gilles always writes (but sometimes forgets): "that's ufology."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • You began my day with a good chortle, what a great line.."the Rumpelstiltskin approach to life." Ill have to bookmark that one. Every time I remember it, I begin to lighten up and recall exactly what kind of planet I am stuck to like a ant on a soccer ball. Time to get out and agitate the natives while enjoying a well made hot dog.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

  • There's nothing better than a good hot dog -- no matter what its content consists of.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, January 13, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home