Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Dec 8, 2016.
That piece of foil on the ground is supposed to be a weather balloon? lol! In a pig's eye..
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Can't give the date but I would suggest around the 60's.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
James Renner's account was written 50 years after the event.
This is completely unreliable, for various reasons.
For a start, it conflates the timing of when certain things were observed. Renner seems to be saying the humming came first, then the UFO, as if the humming must have been coming from the UFO. But Spaur didn't say that. In fact, Spaur said the humming could have been power lines, and he doesn't say that it started when the UFO appeared.
The observations of a "dome on top and a protrusion like a thick antenna" is described as something "the officers" could make out. But Neff didn't report anything like that; only Spaur did. And that was based on what he observed at the end of the chase, not at the start.
Renner claims that Spaur drew his gun and pointed it at the UFO, but Spaur never says that in any statement. In fact, according to another report, Spaur told the radio dispatcher he didn't want to shoot at the UFO because he was worried about how it might react.
Renner says Shoenfelt reversed the order to shoot because he thought the UFO might be a weather balloon. But in another account I read, Shoenfelt ordered Spaur to shoot precisely because he thought it might be a weather balloon and shooting would bring it down. So, we have two directly contradictory accounts here.
Renner also claims that the craft "suddenly starts hauling ass to the east". But I don't think it (apparently) moved until the officers started driving the car. I think Renner is just making up that part of the story.
In short, I wouldn't put too much stock in Renner's 50-years-later report on the case.
I'm afraid you maybe picked the wrong smartass to tangle with on this, Magical Realist.
I'm sorry this is upsetting you so.
Come now. You're practically seething with anger in every post. I keep putting inconvenient facts to you. You keep having no answers apart from your faith-based beliefs. And that upsets you.
Are you going to throw a hissy fit now and leave the conversation, pretending that I've deeply insulted you?
It's OK, Magical Realist. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, as they say.
My account will remain available here for anybody who is interested in the case. People will be able to find this when they google it. And they'll say "Thanks Magical Realist for your part in clearing up this old UFO case!"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So you see that metallic weather balloons were not out of the question in the 60's, or the 50's or even the 40's
I'm rather surprised you would believe they were. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
LOL! Yeah...James R's "it's a meteor, then the planet Venus, then a glowing weather balloon reported by lying newpapers and lying NICAP" theory preserved for all posterity. I'm glad everyone on the Internet will be able to see this. It just shows the absurd lengths debunkers go to try to dismiss the existence of UFOs, It's also a perfect demonstration of confirmation bias, ironically performed by a Science Forum administrator in the name of Science.
"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives."---Tolstoy
Then Hynek made some kind of mistake. Possibly it rose at 4:35 am, local time and Hynek was out by an hour. You can check that yourself using the software I linked to above.
Check it yourself and get back to me.
The image I posted shows a 122 degree field of view. Venus wouldn't have looked quite as close to the moon as it appears in that image. But you're correct that it was relatively near the moon.
It would have been useful for somebody to ask the officers that question, wouldn't it? But apparently nobody did.
Yes. The moon was also rising and dimming.
Their statements don't mention the moon - not that I've seen anyway. I wish somebody had asked them about the moon, but they didn't.
Are you going to respond to any of the actual detailed stuff I wrote above? Or are you just going to whinge and make repeated empty claims?
Why do you feel the need to tell lies about what I've written?
It's a silly thing to do, seeing as the record is right here, in the same thread.
I haven't accused any newspaper of lying. I haven't accused NICAP of lying. I haven't accused anybody of lying - apart from you.
So am I. I'm rather proud of it, truth be told.
You don't come out of the whole thing looking very good, do you?
James. That image of Venus was a bit of bs. It never looks that big. You know that. It looks like a bright star. Not a small moon.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Look at the date on this: 3 June 1964.
Metallic weather balloons in the 1960s? Check.
That image is supposed to show the location of Venus, not its apparent size. The size of any sky object in the program is actually an indicator of its brightness. So, what the large size of Venus is telling you on that image is that Venus was very bright!
Sorry..not bright enough to be mistaken for a brilliant elliptical ufo that was as big as a house and lit up the ground underneath it and made your eyes water when you looked at it and moved to the east 250 feet ahead. Venus doesn't do any of that.
"So we both went for the car, we got in the car and we sat there...
As they watched, the UFO moved toward the east, and then stopped again. Spaur picked up the microphone and reported to the dispatcher. At this time, the object was about 250 feet away, brilliantly lighting up the area ("It was very bright; it'd make your eyes water," Spaur said.)"----http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case79.htm
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm going to do what I always do. Respond to the lies and misrepresentations you spout regarding this compelling case in my own good time.
Yes you have. You claim when newspaper accounts describe things in second person they are lying. You claim Renner is lying. You claim Weitzel is lying. You claim Spaur is lying and inserting false statements into his later accounts. You claim Panzenella is lying. You claim Huston is lying. All you do is accuse people of lying when their accounts conflict with your theory. Which ofcourse is disengenous and confirmation bias.
You worry too much about how you look here. As if anybody is interested in an anonymous Wallace and Gromit avatar posting highly dubious theories in an all but dead science forum. I think you overestimate the amount of fame you have in the online universe.
I am enjoying this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Funny you should quote the exact account by Spaur and the dispatchers that refutes your meteor/Venus theory. Let's look at that part again. Now pay close attention James...
"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
You are claiming that they somehow took a massive exploding meteor that lasted around 12 seconds (of which there is no evidence at all) to be a huge elliptical ufo about 45 feet across and then assumed tiny starlike Venus to be this same ufo after the meteor exploded. That doesn't fit with the account. Spaur was already noticing things like it's shape, it's cone-like light, it's brightness, it's height and size and distance, and it's movement at the point you claim they were just looking at Venus. It could not have been Venus. Nothing about the account suggests a meteor or Venus whatsoever. And nothing suggests any highly improbable simultaneous transference by both Spaur AND Neff of the object as meteor to the object as Venus. People aren't that stupid James, even though you apparently like to think so.
Better yet, how do you explain a beam of light coming out of the planet Venus and lighting the ground like a spotlight? I thought you said nobody reported a cone of light until the very end, I guess when they saw the cone of light coming out of a half-deflated weather balloon? lol!
Notice also they were observing the silouette of the object long before they rendevous with the other officers. The object is speeding along the highway at this point with just Spaur and Neff in pursuit. Then it stopped and returned to them when they made a wrong turn. That was neither the planet Venus nor the weather balloon, which you claim came much later, I assume at the Pennsylvania border where Huston saw it fly right over him and then joined in the chase.
"As the sky became brighter with predawn light, Spaur and Neff saw theUFO in silhouette, with a vertical projection at its rear. The object began to take on a metallic appearance as the chase continued. Spaur kept up a running conversation with other police cars that were trying to catch up with them. Once when they made a wrong turn at an intersection, the object stopped, then turned and came back to their position.
Police Officer Wayne Huston of East Palestine, Ohio, situated near the Pennsylvania border, had been monitoring the radio broadcasts and was parked at an intersection he knew the Portage County officers would be passing soon. Shortly afterward he saw the UFO pass by with the sheriff's cruiser in hot pursuit. He swung out and joined the chase. At Conway, Pennsylvania, Spaur spotted another parked police car and stopped to enlist his aid, since their Cruiser was almost out of gas. The Pennsylvania officer called his dispatcher."
No it doesn't..You're lying again. She described it as being "as big as a house" and to the southeast of Venus. She observed it moving across the sky at 5:15 until it disappeared from view about 5:30. That's not Venus or a meteor.
"Thelma James of Newton Falls, Ohio claimed to have seen an unusual aerial object. She had woken at about 3:50 a.m., and unable to sleep, looked out her bedroom window. She saw a bright light slowly ascending in the sky. Clark notes that this was almost certainly the planet Venus, which, from James's perspective, would have risen above the horizon at 3:35 a.m. However, at about 5:15 a.m., Jones noted that a second light, much brighter than the first, had also appeared in the sky, but closer to the horizon, and to the southeast of Venus. This second light seemed to be crescent shaped, and was a very bright yellow color. It continued moving through the sky and was lost to Jones's view at about 5:30 a.m. James's observations match some of the observations made by the police officers in the UFO chase. Clark writes, "...it is unfortunate that none of the investigators interviewed this witness, who saw both Venus and the UFO--in defiance of those who would soon insist that the two were one." ----http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2011/06/ufo-sighting-ufo-video-police-witnesses.html
You're supposed be the great astronomy expert here and you can't even find documentation for this great meteor explosion you claim happened on April 17, 1966 over Ravenna Ohio? I can't find anything on it. And you know why? Because it never happened. Period. It's just more shit you made up in order to not believe in ufos. Evidently there's no level you won't sink to to avoid admitting the truth of this phenomenon.
You 're deflecting this obvious glaring hole in your whole theory. There is simply no way those officers could have confused the changes in their own direction and movement with the relative changes of direction and movement of the planet Venus when the moon was right beside it the whole time, preventing them from ever making such a stupid mistake. The attributed mistake was stupid enough already. But with the moon thrown in, it becomes a ludicrous joke and further proof of your own desperation to claim anything just to keep from having to believe in ufos. Why didn't the officers mention the moon or Venus early on? Simply because they weren't tracking that at all. They were tracking the big elliptical shining ufo flying around the sky from west to east to southeast to north at around 1000 feet.
Venus, at its brightest, is equivalent to a -4.4 magnitude star, which is extremely bright. The moon, at its maximum has magnitude -12 (lower numbers mean brighter). Only 4 stars in the entire sky have apparent magnitudes less than zero, and the nearest one to Venus is Sirius, with magnitude -1.5. The magnitude scale is logarithmic, by the way.
That's an interesting photo you posted there, Magical Realist.
First, notice that visually Venus looks to have similar brightness to the crescent moon.
Second, notice that Venus does not appear as a pointlike object, but as a round disc. Also, Venus displays phases, just like the moon. That's why it isn't a complete circle, but a sort of squashed ellipse in the photo.
Separate names with a comma.