Mansfield helicopter ufo incident

This is from your own linked article:

"Any theory of the object’s being a meteor (UFO skeptic Philip Klass maintains that the object was a “fireball of the Orionid meteor shower”) can readily be rejected on the basis of: (1) the duration of the event (an estimated 300 seconds); (2) the marked deceleration and hard-angle maneuver of the object at closest approach; (3) the precisely defined shape of the object; and (4) the horizon-to-horizon flight path."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Klass apparently relies on the old meteor explanation quite regularly. The problem is something like that would be seen for hundreds of miles in cities all across Ohio. Yet no mention is ever made of such an event in any of the papers the next day. Why is that James?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's what Klass claims. I have my doubts. In any case, I suspect a helicopter and a bright ufo can be sighted from "miles away."

 

Ad homing eyewitnesses won't add credibility to your argument.

I'm going by all statements made by all the eyewitnesses. There will be no editing of accounts to suit Klass's conclusion.

 

I provided the link. Go find it.

Effectively ruling out anything remotely resembling a meteor.

Jezzi also said this:

"It took just a couple of seconds," Jezzi said. "I remember looking up through the ceiling and I saw a white light moving over top of us. I followed it to the left horizon where it disappeared."

Jezzi isn't sure what he saw. It was like no aircraft he'd ever seen. He guessed it was traveling at least 500 knots, twice the speed of his Huey.

"Red navigational lights aren't located in the front of an aircraft," he said. "That's what was moving toward us. I don't know what it was."

http://www.ufocasebook.com/coyne.html

 

Ad hom...? How is stating a simple fact an ad hominem attack? Methinks you doth project too much...

 

Does it also "effectively rule out" the (alleged) green light that everyone else claimed they saw?

Given that he was wrong about his own aircraft's speed what else was he wrong about?

 

You mean descriptions like this?

“It wasn’t cruising, it was stopped. For maybe ten to twelve seconds – just stopped,” Yanacsek reported. Coyne, Healey, and Yanacsek agree that a cigar-shaped, slightly domed object substended an angle of nearly the width of the front windshield. A featureless, gray, metallic-looking structure was precisely delineated against the background stars. Yanacsek reported “a suggestion of windows” along the top dome section. The red light emanated from the bow, a white light became visible at a slightly indented stern, and then, from aft/below, a green ‘pyramid shaped” beam equated to a directional spotlight became visible. The green beam passed upward over the helicopter nose, swung up through the windshield, continued upward and entered the tinted upper window panels.

At that point (and not before), the cockpit was enveloped in green light. Jezzi reported only a bright white light, comparable to the leading light of a small aircraft"---http://www.clevelandufo.com/?page_id=18

 

Because the eyewitnesses were there. Klass wasn't and has an agenda of debunking the ufo as a meteor. Now who should we trust? Hmmmm...

Describes it as a craft with a white spotlight "moving over the top of us" and a red leading light. That's not a meteor, which would only be one white blinding flash.

He might not have been familiar with the helicopter's top speed. So what?

 

The detailed description of the craft by the pilots and ground witnesses is there in the accounts from the beginning. You don't get detail of structure like that from seeing a blinding meteor.

 

I have to retire for the night. Walking Dead is about to start. Maybe later responses tonight if I feel like it.

 

And - given that he "mis-estimated" the helicopter's speed - what are the chances he also got the "500 knots" wrong?

That's an assumption on your part and an unconfirmed claim on theirs.

 

Since he got that wrong then what other "details" did he get wrong due to "unfamiliarity"?
What details did the rest of the crew get wrong?
You either accept everything as stated or you check and question everything: obviously not a philosophy to which you subscribe - your modus operandi appears to be "Accept without reservation everything that supports your pre-formed opinion and dismiss as irrelevant or trivial anything that might call it into question".

 

So not knowing the top speed of a helicopter means you can't estimate the flight speed of an observed craft? Uh no.

And you're assuming they weren't there and are lying because that suits Klass's assumption that is was a meteor.

 

What does one person not knowing the speed parameters of his helicopter have to do with other crew members getting anything wrong? That doesn't even make sense.

Right. I accept the eyewitness accounts as given. You on the other hand dismiss parts of the accounts or whole accounts to suit your debunking agenda that it was not a real ufo. That's called confirmation bias.

 

Really?
If he didn't know what speed he was doing (for whatever reason) then how would he have any idea what speed the "UFO" was going at?
Given the lack of confirmed size/ distance reference then it would necessarily be based on a comparison between his own craft and the "UFO". And, given that he got his own speed wrong...

Nope: I'm saying that - lacking definitive confirmation either way (and the dispute over their location) - there's no reason to assume that they were in fact there.

Ah, I see. You acknowledge that ONE guy (out of four) got something wrong but... what? The other three are infallible?
We know for a fact that at least part of one person's testimony is flawed - so should we assume that he was the ONLY one that got something wrong?

Um, no. Try reading what I actually wrote: You either accept everything as stated or you check and question everything. YOU personally are essentially doing the former whereas I (and James and...) are doing the latter. Ergo the confirmation bias is entirely yours.