Portage County/Ravenna UFO chase 1966

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Dec 8, 2016.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    I'm inclined to believe Hynek over you. He was actually there at the time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Meteors don't last 10 seconds. There's simply not enough time for them to mistake that for what they claim they saw that night. And the object never disappears. It is seen when they are outside the car. And it is seen when they get in the car. It is even seen to move from overhead their car to 250 ft ahead of them to the east. If they were suddenly looking at the planet Venus then the estimate of distance would have been more like miles away.

    No it didn't. It kept changing height and direction of location. This is all in the accounts given.

    Why would they? Would you notice the star in the sky while a huge brilliant ufo was floating 100 feet about you? I know I wouldn't.

    Hundreds of eyewitnesses called in that night. In two states no less.

    Do you listen yourself? It somehow caught the sun's rays a few minutes before sunrise? And I've looked at weather balloons from 1966. They're all white. No metallic ones.

    How did they get their attention transferred from the tiny Planet Venus to a weather balloon? They look nothing alike and certainly weren't in the same position in the sky.


    Or neither mistakes or lies. Just including details they didn't include before.

    I read a report that said the winds were only 3 mph that morning. How do you account for the tremendous speed this balloon would have to be traveling to simulate a ufo?

    That's an assumption to account for the bits of his account that don't line up with your explanation. That's called confirmation bias.

    We have two accounts of watching the ufo go up and disappear. That's the one that is reliable to me.

    Right..the little star beside the moon suddenly turned into a dark silouetted elliptical shaped object with a projection on the back and a beam of light shining down like a cone. Not buying that for a second.

    So there was no sun shining on a weather balloon at that point. Right?

    The sky immediately turns blue with the sun rises, blocking out all stars and planets.

    What of Huston's viewing it for 10 minutes approaching from the west and then flying directly over him with Spaur and Neff driving after it? Are you just going to say that never happened?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    That's the thing though. Meteors rarely if ever come at you from across the sky horizontally. They are always going down towards the earth. The chances of them standing just at that spot on earth where a meteor would appear to be flying straight at them are miniscule. And how did that lady which they talked to a little while before see the same meteor? That was too long ago to be the same meteor.

    Correction: Reacting as IF their clothes were on fire. That's what I meant.

    They mention the area being lit up like noon. Like high noon says the radio dispatcher. That's not the predawn light.

    So the bright flash of the meteor ends while they're getting in their car, and now they look up to see it, and there's no meteor anymore. Just a dark sky with the moon and a tiny star beside it. And this they mistake for the same object they saw right before? That's so laughable it's not even funny.

    The moon is a lot brighter, and was sitting right next to it.

    Yes it is starlike. People mistake it for a star all the time. It is a point of light in the sky, and is not a disc.

    They wouldn't have estimated the planet Venus to be an object hovering 250 away. They wouldn't have seen Venus move to the east and then stop. They wouldn't have said it was so bright it makes your eyes water. None of this makes any sense whatsoever.

    Oh here we go with the sleight of hand.

    Uh no..reporters aren't suddenly making shit up when they describe an event in second hand terms. All the information of the report is based on interviews with the witnesses. Switching to second hand descriptions is a literary device to sustain interest--to show what it felt like to be there. It's just as reliable as the quoted statements. Take a course in journalism some time. I have.

    LOL! I can stick my head under my windshield and see right above me. This was probably even more true for cars in the 1960's. Their windshields were more angled than nowadays.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    You have no evidence Weitzel made up anything. Which is why you are swallowing Quintanella's account like a bass. It's the only mundane explanation you have left. Which is to say, none at all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Noone adult makes a mistake like that. And it doesn't even match the description given. We have accounts by Spaur of the ufo being elliptical shaped and big as a house and lighting the whole area, We have accounts of it moving from east to south to back north, and ascending from 100 feet to 1000 feet. This is not Venus.

    Actually people sharing memories increases your memory of the event and the object, and doesn't decrease it. You are gaining objective information about the object from other people, and it is reminding you of more details you didn't notice before.

    No..I just don't edit people's descriptions to match my assumptions about how their experience occurred. I trust people's memory of their own experiences over my own confabulated expectation of what I want them to have experienced.

    I'd put the obsession to edit an eyewitness's memory into an account that matches my beliefs into the category of mild insanity. It's confirmation bias, and is delusional.

    It couldn't happen in anytime more that 3 or 4 seconds. Meteors are very fast, and especially when they are right over you.

    More sleight of hand?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's still based on Spaur and Neff's statements. Just because they describe in second hand terms doesn't mean they're just making it up. Not in the real universe of truthful journalism. Maybe in your universe where everyone is lying and making shit up all the time.

    So they were in the car and watching the object hover there and lighting up the whole area like high noon. It's not a relevant point.

    Except for the fact that many more than Spaur and Neff saw the ufo and did not identify it as like the planet venus, a meteor, or a weather balloon. Remember that lady who saw it and said it was as big as house. Details like these are what refute your whole cockamamie theory.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    I'm just using common sense. Something I expect you would've used on this point before I had to.

    We don't know what those eyewitnesses reported. If it was a meteor, then they'd describe it like that. Why are there no reports of a meteor being seen in that area that night? No astronomical confirmation of it at all. Where is all the good sciency data on THAT?

    'How do you know? Did you interview any of those hundreds of witnesses?

    It's just a newspaper article showing the Ravenna dispatcher received calls from 6-7 police departments. Don't worry about it if you can't locate it.

    I couldn't find the original source. It's either from Renner's investigation or Weitzel's. But it's definitely something Spaur said.

    Except that weather balloons don't have spotlights shining down lighting up the area underneath.

    Spaur was likely describing it seen from different distances. That would account for size variation.

    I think it's all from Weitzel. There's obviously more details he gathered from Spaur outside of the original interviews, like the radio transmissions. Here's some additional details of Spaur's initial experience he gathered from radio dispatchers:

    "1) Spaur and Neff first sighted the UFO here, between Atwater and Randolph, on Rte. 224. It appeared over some trees atop a small hill next to the road. They had been hearing some traffic on the radio about a UFO reported in Summit County, and Dale said, "There it is!" At this time it rapidly grew in size and came from over the trees, relatively small, to a point directly over their cruiser, quite large and bright. "Like high noon," quoted the Radio Operator in Ravenna who listened to their initial description and resulting chase. Spaur said the thing was round, about 45 feet across, and about 100 feet above them. Another radio operator reports that Spaur said it illuminated the ground so brightly that they would not have needed headlights. (I examined the area four days later; at that time of the morning, 5:07AM EST, the sky was blue-black, just barely light.)

    Spaur and Neff had left their cruiser before seeing the UFO, to examine a parked (abandoned) car and rapidly re-entered their car when the object came overhead. While they watched and radioed the description, it began to move down the road to the east and accelerate forward. The radio operator in Ravenna told them to chase it. They did so. Its appearance now was rounded on top, with a cone-shaped light underneath. It continued to illuminate the ground over which it passed, tilting forward when it moved forward; the light followed it to the rear on the ground, whence Spaur's analogy with a flashlight which, when aimed down, throws a beam to the rear when tilted forward. Spaur did not see a beam in the air, only the illuminated ground. This does not seem to me to be unusual, granting the proximity and brightness of the object."---http://www.nicap.org/raven9.htm
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Reporter James Renner's account based on his own investigation of the Ravenna ufo case for the Cleveland Scene:

    "From behind, they hear a strange electrical humming sound. They turn and watch in amazement as a saucer-shaped craft -- perhaps 50 feet long and 20-some feet high -- rises slowly from behind the trees and hovers in the air. A bright light shines from the bottom, bathing the ground. Squinting, the officers make out what appears to be a dome on top and a protrusion like a thick antenna.

    Spaur remembers his radio and reports what he's seeing. After a confused exchange, the dispatcher advises the officers to shoot it down, so they'll be able to prove their story. Spaur draws his gun hesitantly and aims it at the craft.

    At the Ravenna police station, Sergeant Henry Shoenfelt suddenly wonders whether Spaur and Neff have spotted a government weather balloon. He gets on the radio himself and reverses the order to fire. Wait there, he says, until someone can be sent with a camera.


    But then the craft suddenly starts hauling ass to the east. Spaur and Neff scramble back to their car and give chase."----http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/strangers-in-the-night/Content?oid=1485939


    A meteor or the planet Venus? Ridiculous!
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Here's a screenshot from the Stellarium planetarium software, of the sky in Ohio on the date of the Portage County/Ravenna UFO chase.

    I just produced this myself. If you don't believe that this is genuine, you can go and download the (free) software and check for yourself. The software is here:

    http://www.stellarium.org

    Notice that the time here is given as 6:15 am, local time. However, I think there are issues with daylight saving, so that the local time on this image should really be 5:15 am (that's EST). But you can play around with the time if you get the program yourself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is approximately what the sky would have looked like to Spaur and Neff at the start of the great UFO chase.

    See the letters "E" and "S" there? "E" means east, and "S" means south, so the centre of this image is looking almost due east. Notice that Venus and the Moon are near to each other, slightly to the South of East. As you run time forward during the time of the chase, you will see that Venus moves up and the right on the image.

    And see that glow in the sky to the left of the "E"? That's the Sun getting ready to rise. You can see it rise if you use the program, and check the time of sunrise, which was about 5:50 local time (6:50 in the program). Also, if you run the program you will see the apparent brightness of Venus dim as it gets closer to sunrise. Once the Sun rises, Venus is practically invisible.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    No..I don't agree with that at all. Hynek said that Venus rose at 3:35 in morning. It would be way up higher in the sky than what you have pictured there. Plus it was right beside the moon, This fact raises a further problem for your theory. All during the chase Venus would have been right beside the moon. When as you claim it shifted from what seemed to be south to north, and when it went from one side of the road to the other, you're telling me those officers couldn't tell this was due to changes in their direction when the moon was doing the same thing? Ofcourse they'd know. The planet Venus stayed in a fixed position relative to the moon the whole time. So even their claims of it rising higher would make no sense unless you claim they thought the moon was rising also. Because of this fact, there's no way they'd mistake the starlike Venus for a moving UFO as described during the chase.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Magical Realist:

    You seriously want to continue to deny the position I've given you concerning the planet Venus on that day? Even though I've pointed you to the tools you can use to verify this for yourself?

    That is a serious case of denial you've got there, Magical Realist.

    If you can't even accept easily-verified facts, what hope does anybody have of ever changing your mind on any of this?


    Right at the start of this video, we see a meteor that is in view for at least 12 seconds. Later in the video you might see it for a longer time. I didn't check.

    Will you retract your baseless claim in light of this direct evidence that you are wrong, or will you deny this, too?

    I've already covered all this, previously. Go back and read what I wrote again. Try to pay attention this time.

    Again, I already covered that apparent changes in direction.

    Tell me, Magical Realist: why did the chase head more-or-less directly towards the planet Venus for its entire duration? Do you think the UFO was going to Venus (very slowly)?

    Even when asked about it directly?

    Already covered this.

    Yes.

    Part of the problem here is that it sounds like you haven't spent much time properly observing the night sky, the stars or the planets.

    Sunrise is defined as the time when the top of the sun first rises above the local horizon. However, if an object is some distance off the ground, it will "see" the sunrise earlier than somebody on the ground, because it can "look around" the curvature of the Earth more.

    Thus, the rays of the sun when it is about to rise can and do reflect off objects in the sky, including aircraft and weather balloons.

    You've looked at all of them, have you? You're an expert on 1966 weather balloons? I don't believe you, Magical Realist.

    Good points. They don't look exactly the same. But then, the sky itself wasn't looking exactly the same, either.

    Somewhere near Rochester, Pennsylvania, the policemen lost sight of the "UFO". This was because Venus was getting harder to see against the brightening sky. Also, at various times, the car had to pass under bridges and the like. There was also some traffic on the roads, and the police officers had to turn corners now and then. They couldn't and didn't keep it in sight at all times.

    Spaur reported that, after travelling under a series of bridges and through tunnels, he eventually managed to spot the UFO again, having lost sight of it previously. When he could see it again, he said that "it had lost probably half its altitude". At this time, Venus was about 20 degrees above the horizon, but looking very dim against the sky. About half of this altitude would put the object at 10 degrees or so.

    And guess where Pazanella said that the object he was looking at was in the sky? At 11 degrees!

    When the other officers met up with Panzanella, they all looked at the object at 11 degrees. By that time, Venus was unremarkable in the sky at about double the apparent height of the "UFO" (which was probably a weather balloon).

    You need to concentrate and pay attention, Magical Realist. I already told you that the balloon never travelled at tremendous speed. It wasn't involved in the car chase; they were chasing Venus.

    Nor did the balloon shoot up into the sky at tremendous speed. This story is proved false by the initial accounts given by Spaur, Panzanella and Huston.

    No. It's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the available evidence.

    You're the one making unwarranted assumptions here, not me.

    Why choose one over the other? On what basis do you do that? Wishful thinking?

    You ought to admit that they are irreconcilable, and move on.

    Nobody mentioned a beam of light shining like a cone at this time (at the end of the chase). As for the rest, the weather balloon explanation fits.

    Yes, there was. See above.

    This shows that you haven't watched many sunrises - or at least you haven't taken notice of what the sky and the stars do at sunrise.

    The sky does not immediately turn blue at sunrise. It's not like a light switch - off goes the black sky, on comes the blue sky. Rather, the black becomes a dark blue, which then lightens until it at the full daytime colour. At the same time, the stars become less visible as their light is washed out by the brightening sky, until eventually they can't be seen at all. The process is not instant, but gradual.

    Get up early and actually watch a sunrise for yourself if you don't believe me.

    I already covered Huston's account in detail above. Go back and read what I wrote again. Try to pay attention this time.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    You're turning into quite the smartass aren't you. I warned you about disrespecting me. If you can't answer my questions respectfully, then I'm not wasting my time with you.

    LOL! Just as soon as you retract your lie that Ohio experienced a huge meteor on April 17th 1966 comparable to that one filmed over Russia a few years ago. Either provide evidence of said meteor by the media or atronomers or admit you're lying.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It wouldn't have been necessary for it to fly straight at them.

    Yes, you're right.

    You're not going to like this, but ... most likely the lady reported seeing the planet Venus! The direction of the sighting fits, and so does the description.

    Only that's not what happened. Neff said nothing about even thinking his clothes would be on fire. Only Spaur mentioned checking his clothes at all, and he specifically said there was no effect. What this shows, though, is that Spaur was immediately frightened of the UFO (whatever it was) as soon as he saw it.

    I haven't seen the radio dispatcher's statement, so can't verify any of that.

    You might find it laughable, but it's most likely what happened. People make mistakes.

    What did they say about the moon? Anything?

    This is getting somewhat tiresome, Magical Realist. You're just guessing at what things look like near sunrise, and you obviously have no clue.

    Do me a favour: get up and watch the sunrise. And while you're at it, take a good look at the planet Venus, if it is visible. Compare it to actual stars in the sky. If you have binoculars, you'll get an even better idea of what I'm talking about, but you can see what I've described with the naked eye.

    Who are you to tell them what they would and wouldn't have done? You're 60 years removed from them. You weren't there. You aren't them.

    You're just assuming what you want to be true. And you go on about confirmation bias. The point of being aware of confirmation bias is supposed to be so you can avoid falling into that trap yourself. But that doesn't work for you, does it?

    You mean, oh here we go with an explanation that draws your attention to uncomfortable facts that you'd rather not have to deal with.

    Methinks thou protests too much.

    Here we're talking about a report written 50 years after the event, in which the reporter has added in something that no witness at the time ever said, and which appears in no contemporary record or report.

    And you think this is just fine.

    It's an interesting double standard you have, Magical Realist. People are allowed to "make shit up", as long as it helps the alien spaceship theory. But, on the other hand, you'll take people to task for pointing out inconvenient but verifiable facts to you that don't fit your preconceptions, claiming they are "making shit up".

    Why do you have this double standard, Magical Realist?

    There's no point pursuing this particular silly claim any further. Clearly, if you're sitting in the driver's seat of that car in the photo, you can't look straight up at 90 degrees to see things that are above the blue light.

    But if you want to believe that you can, there's not much I can do about that. Nothing vital hinges on this, anyway.

    Actually I do.

    For example, when Weitzel is discussing Panzanella's initial sighting of the UFO, Weitzel writes that Panzanella first sighted the object to the southwest (which Weitzel later changed to west). This makes sense, since the "chase" was going on to the west of Panzanella's location at the time.

    However, this is not what Panzanella said in his statements. He said he saw the UFO in the east.

    And another thing: Weitzel's own map in his report to NICAP shows the UFO to the east of Panzanella's location.

    In other words, Weitzel's own report is self-contradictory. What has happened here is that Weitzel, when he looked at Panzanella's account, already expected the UFO should be to the west. Instead of noticing the conflict between his own expectation and Panzanella's statements, Weitzel altered his report to claim that Panzanella saw the UFO to the west. In other words, consciously or not, Weitzel just made up the idea that Panzanella saw the UFO in the west.

    I have explicitly stated that Quinanella's account was only half right.

    Why are you going out of your way to tell lies about what I've said, Magical Realist? Is this just laziness or lack of attention on your part, or are you deliberately making shit up again?
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Someone denying metalic looking weather balloons?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...UKEwiKs5SfiJbRAhXJnZQKHYBlB3kQsAQIGw&dpr=2.63
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Already covered all that.

    Moreover, there are literally thousands documented instances of people mistaking Venus for a UFO, so adults do indeed make mistakes just like that.

    All I can do is to inform you of facts. Knowing nothing about neuroscience or psychology, you choose to deny those facts. That's your prerogative, but realise that you're in deep denial there.

    But that's exactly what you're doing here!

    See my post above, proving that a meteor can be seen for at least 12 seconds.

    It doesn't even have to be a conscious invention. When somebody tells you a story, or you read one, you automatically generate a picture of what occurred in your mind. In doing so, you tend to embellish the story - adding in details that aren't necessarily there in the original account.

    Again, psychological studies of this effect have been done, and this occurs, whether or not you choose to deny it.

    But in the materials you've posted we have already seen two clear examples of journalists or other writers adding details that appear nowhere in the witness statements. I'm afraid that does mean that the writers were "just making it up", regardless of what you'd like to believe.

    I'm glad you accept that they were in the car when they made the radio call, now.

    Not at all.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Those are all from the 1960's? No..
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Since this is useful for reference, I am posting a copy of Weitzel's letter to Prof. William Powers regarding the case. This is Weitzel's summary of the event, which I am assuming is similar to his NICAP report.

     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    (continued...)
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Are you now saying that metalic weather balloons did not exist in the 60's?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    How about Roswell just for starters in the 40's?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,600
    Was it a metallic weather balloon? Show me the photo..
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Why don't you go and do some research of your own? Look up whether any meteor showers were happening on 17 April, 1966. There are quite a few regularly-repeating ones, and you should be able to find the dates if you look.

    On the other hand, meteors are regularly seen even when they aren't particularly associated with "famous" meteor showers.

    No. But this story was all over the press. And yet, nobody came forward after all the newspaper publicity to confirm sighting the giant house-sized metallic UFO emitting the blinding beams of light all over the roads of Ohio and Pennsylvania. They would certainly have got press coverage if they had.

    You don't find that at all strange?

    Nobody reported spotlights shining down from underneath at the end of the chase, when they were watching the weather balloon. Panzanella, in particular, doesn't mention any such thing in his description of the UFO, does he?

    Another thing that would account for the size variation in different reports is that he really had no idea of how big it was. So he guessed.

    It's interesting that Neff reported the UFO apparently sitting on a beam of light, but according to Weitzel, here, Spaur did not see a beam of light in the air, only one illuminating the ground.

    How are we to reconcile those differing accounts, Magical Realist?
     

Share This Page