MY "B" COMMENTS INTESPERSED.
Subj: Re: MANTELL CASE COVERUP
Date: 6/12/2006 10:24:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: tomd_lists@earthlink.net
Comments interspersed
TD:
The correspondence discussed below is for Sign Incident #187, and
located at:
and is very legible.
Is this really a pro-UFO statement or simply the obvious
observation
that the calculated positions of Venus in paragraph 3 conflict with
the observed positions reported in paragraph 2? It is quite clear
that
the measured positions reported in the letter are far from the
known
positions of Venus during the afternoon of 7 Jan 1948. This was a
serendipitous discovery arising from an inquiry into another
sighting,
probably of Venus, from Godman Field in August 1948.
B:
You don't answer my question: Since when in the AF files
have you EVER seen
an anti-IFO or pro-UFO conclusions stated in writing as
"conclusive"????
If you look at the historical context of the time, 1948, and the
AF's efforts
to make this sensational case go away, then this kind of blunt
anti-IFO
statement is indeed very unusual and significant -- and in light
of Deyarmond's
next step of declaring the Mantell case "unexplained." No
one in all of 58 years
of UFO history ever knew that the AF had internally concluded the
Mantell
case was "unexplained" and had covered it up with
weasel-worded. Today in 2006 we
find out about it for the first time.
TD:
Curiously, the positions cited by Col Hix and Lt Orner do not
agree.
B:
They are at different times.
TD:
Col.
Hix reports215°, but the letter attributes a 240° azimuth
measurement to
Orner at 1400 hrs. This measurement is not what Lt. Orner reported
in his
B:
It's obviously a mistake in the analysis memo.
TD:
There, he reports that the 240° azimuth, 8° elevation
measurement was
taken at 1735CST. He gives no time for the 250° azimuth at
which his object
went below the horizon.
B:
We are only reading a part of Lt Orner's reporting including his
theodolite
tracking at Godman Field. Cpl. James Hudson at Clinton
County AFB heard the
azimuth-elevation readouts from Orner's tracking over the Plan 62
Interphone
System, linking several airfields in the region which was
activated during the
Mantell incident. Hudson at CC AFB heard and recorded the
exact readouts and
times 6:54 - 7:02 PM (CST) of Orner's theodolite tracking at
Godman Field from
around 250 degs (254.6 to 253. 9 to 253.0 degs).
TD:
I initially presumed that this was Venus (it was
almost an hour after sunset), but Venus does fit. Venus set
at 249° at 1907CST, but was nowhere near 240, 8 at 1735CST. It
would have
been there around 1818 CST, however. Did Orner make a mistake in
his
notes? 240° points a little south of Madisonville.
I reason that the 1400 time in the above letter seems almost
certainly
incorrect,
since the aircraft were dispatched toward 215°. But what
of 1735CST? Was
something seen at that time and azimuth? I can only note the
discrepancy in
these theodolite measurements.
Daniel Wilson made an interesting related find, which seems to
cloud things
even more.
http://www.nicap.org/bb/USAF-SIGN1-526.jpg
In this affidavit Cpl Hudson reports theodolite measurements from
Godman
Field
with azimuths around 254° (a little off from Venus, but not
too bad) and
elevations
and times that correlate very well with Venus. Fine on the
surface, but how
many
theodolites were tracking objects that evening? Does this infer
that Orner's
measurements were taken in afternoon after all, and not at 1735CST
or later.
Very confusing!
B: No, Hudson recorded what he heard of Orner's readings
over the interbase
interphone system (see above). This does not match Venus too
well, especially
the sequence of DECREASING azimuths (254.6 to 253. 9 to 253.0
degs), whereas
Venus' azimuth must INCREASE as it set.
Here is what I found around the time my computer crashed last week:
Godman Field Control Tower
Latitude N 37
54.4
Longitude W 85 58.0
Jan 7, 1948
TIME
OBJECT (UFO) VENUS
Azimuth
Elevation Azimuth
Elevation
5:35 PM CST 240
degs + 8 degs
232.9
degs +15 degs 23.0 mins
6:54 PM
CST 254.6
+
2.4
246.3
+ 2 11.7
6:56 PM
CST 253.9 +
2.0
246.7
+ 1 51.6
7:02 PM
CST 253.0
+
1.2 247.5
+ 0 52
7:06 PM
CST disappeared 248 +
0 12
7:07 PM
CST
Venus set below
horizon
(Corrected for refraction, parallax, etc.)
The problem with this being Venus is that the azimuths are off by
7 to 8.3 to
7.2 to 5.5 degs and the elevation by 7 degs at first, but more
troubling is
that the object WENT SOUTH from 6:54 to 7:02 PM, instead of Venus
which WENT
NORTH. A setting celestial body cannot do this.
However the nearly
simultaneous disappearance of Venus and the object is troubling
too.
Even if we postulated that the theodolite was miscalibrated by 7-8
degrees,
that would mean all the directions are shifted consistently by
that same angle
(it's called a "systematic error"). The amount of that shift
does not CHANGE
from minute to minute!!! Once the theodolite is anchored
that is it, a 7
degree error stays 7 degrees from then on. How then can we
get only a 5.5-degree
error if the hypothesized miscalibration was 7 (or was it 8?)
degs????
Even so a miscalibration still doesn't explain the RELATIVE
azimuth changes
heading SOUTH when they should have been heading NORTH. Also
the magnitude of
azimuth change is problematic. The object moved South (to
the left) by 1.6
degs in 6 minutes when at the same time Venus moved 1.2 degs (in
those 6
minutes) to the North (to the right).
Then Albert Deyarmond, Asst Deputy for Technical Analysis in
the AMC Intell
Dept, comments on this analysis, based again on the (covered
up) THEODOLITE
TRACKING and azimuth data, two days later with his own
conclusion that the
Mantell case was "UNEXPLAINED":
"10 Nov 48
"It is apparent from the data given above, that the object
sighted at Godman
Air Force Base on 7 January 1948 was not the planet Venus.
Therefore, this
sighting must be considered as unexplained.
"A. B. DEYARMOND
Asst Deputy for Tech Analysis
Tech Intelligence Div
Intelligence Department"
I don't know about you but I feel this document is something
of a bombshell,
virtually the EQUIVALENT of the TS Estimate of the Situation,
it is just
short of stating "extraterrestrial." And as we ought to know,
in the Navy
document I found that quotes the suppressed Project Sign Interim Status
Report of 30
Nov 1948 (the actual Ghost of the Estimate, not the AIR 203
study whuch said
nothing about ETH), they were still asserting in that Interim
Report the ETH
or "inter-planetary" as a possible explanation for flying
discs.
I also want to convey how amazed I am to find so many AF brass
inside the
Control Tower at Godman Field during the Mantell
incident. I have never
heard this before. This was not some case of a bunch of dumbcluck hillbilly
enlisted men and low-ranking green officers. The base CO was
there, Col. Hix, along
with Lt Col. E. G. Wood probably his deputy, Base Operations
Officer Capt
Cary Carter, Capt James Duesler, and more, this is just off the top
of my head.
Also there was a Control Tower shift change at 3 PM in the
middle of the
Mantell chase, so an entirely new set of Tower personnel were then
exposed to the
whole incident, effectively doubling the number of personnel
involved.
This reminds me that back in 1975 I interviewed Gen. Garland
and was
surprised to hear him say "I knew Tommy Mantell" and he said
he thought
highly of him (if I can find my notes I can check the exact quotes I think I
made)
Clearly Mantell was not a hick barnyard pilot in some hillbilly
Kentucky ANG but was
known to important AF brass as having a high reputation long
before his death.
And although Ruppelt lies and covers up a lot in this case, as
he does in so
many others, he does let slip (as he sometimes does in other
cases) one
intriguing comment of special human interest (p. 37):
"A long-time friend of Mantell's went on record as saying that
he'd flown
with him several years and knew him personally. He couldn't
conceive of
Mantell's even thinking about disregarding his lack of oxygen. Mantell
was one of the
most cautious pilots he knew.
"The only thing I can think," he
commented, "was that he was
after something that he believed to
be more important than his
life or his family."
Keep that ultimate sacrifice in mind before you dismiss this
case as just a
stupid IFO and dumb pilot error in flying too high without
oxygen. There
are many troublesome aspects of this case that call for a fair
hearing at last
be given to Mantell. Maybe it will turn out that it was an
IFO and was
hypoxia/pilot error. But let's finally review ALL of the
available FACTS
and DOCUMENTS FIRST before doing so shall we?
Yes Venus set as would be seen from Clinton County AFB,
Wilmington, Ohio,
the time I get by US Naval Observatory online calculations at 7:56
PM EST (19:56
rather than 19:58) or 6:56 PM CST the time zone used for most
of the Godman
Field reporting. The Clinton County AFB Control Tower
was about 3 miles
southeast of Wilmington so a more pinpoint calculation based
on its exact
coordinates might account for the couple minutes' difference:
Clinton County AFB, Wilmington, Ohio
Control Tower 39 25 47 N, 83 47 32 W elev about 1055 ft
However, at about the same time as the 6-7 PM (CST) sightings
from Clinton
County AFB, the same or similar sighting was made from
Lockbourne AFB,
Columbus, Ohio, where a key witness in the Control Tower was an AMATEUR
ASTRONOMER with 6
years' affiliation with the Hayden Planetarium/American Museum
of Natural
History.
True, witnesses can see Venus or stars on the horizon changing
colors,
twinkling, seeming to move up-down, side-to-side,
back-and-forth, without
actually going anywhere, due to autokinesis effects of involuntary
eyeball movements
viewing largely featureless backgrounds like the sky where the
eye cannot
hold its focus perfectly still.
But the amateur astronomer witness in the Lockbourne Control
Tower states
that he saw the light in the WSW at about 15 degs elevation, a
very specific
figure, at roughly 6:45 PM (CST), TWO HOURS AFTER SUNSET, and
that it was
red, changing to amber-yellow for 1-2 secs at a time, and INTENSELY
BRIGHT
"greater than that of any star" and comparable to a RUNWAY LANDING
LIGHT AT "FULL
INTENSITY" at 500 feet away. Assuming a runway light is
2 feet in diameter
(someone could check on that) the angular size would be over 1/3 Full
Moon, much much
larger than a star or planet or pinpoint.
It appeared to be appeared to be circular with "a thin wisp of
tail extending
towards the horizon" and its length about 5 object
diameters. Obviously
very specific and hard to imagine anyone with astronomy background
can
extrapolate 5 times a pinpoint, it had to have an extended angular
diameter. Presumably
this "tail" was about 2 Full Moons in length.
Then at the very specific time of 6:50 PM this object suddenly
dropped to
the horizon in about 4 seconds, hovered there for 3 seconds, then
climbed back
to its previous position (about 15 degs elevation) in 3 seconds,
but not in a
straight line, but in an elliptical course
counterclockwise. That does not
sound like autokinesis of a star or planet Venus. He
estimated its speed in
this rapid maneuver as about 500 mph and that it appeared to be
about 5 miles
away from Lockbourne. Allowing for human error in estimating
the 15 deg
elevation (witnesses usually overestimate) so that it was say 5-10 degs
elevation, in
fact, that is roughly correct for a 5-mile distance moving
5-10 degs in 4
secs (400-800 mph).
Then it lowered to the horizon and faded out of sight at 6:55
PM. Yes this
was the setting time of Venus to within a minute or so, and it
was in the
same direction (WSW). Extraordinary coincidence.
This just screams out "astronomical"!!!! But before you
decide to dismiss
this as Venus just consider a few more troubling observations
by the amateur
astronomer in the Lockbourne Control Tower (and the sightings
by the 6 Tower
and base personnel at Clinton Co. AFB at the same time). And
keep in mind this
is a PARTIAL analysis based on only a small part of the scattered
files on this
case in the BB files (it is very time-consuming pulling this
all togther, a
detailed Chronology minute by minute is desperately needed and
it needs to
watch for numerous typos and other errors in the AF files and not
just blindly
accept what they read in black and white):
He reported that there was "a high overcast and not one
heavenly body was
visible." How then could Venus have been visible?
He concluded "The object
apparently being under the overcast, and its erratic movement
proves that it
was not an astronomical phenomenon."
So then we have to postulate that the overcast was not
overcast but a haze
that Venus could shine through. But that does not
explain the Clinton Co.
AFB observations which in fair agreement with the Lockbourne
describe a
vertically elongated lighted object, specifically in a triangular or
ice-cream cone
shape and colored red in parts. The Clinton Co. AFB witnesses
say the object was
so bright that when a cloud drifted in front of it the light
shined right
through, even though the cloud blotted out the stars (from
there the weather
was not overcast but scattered clouds). They made several
drawings of this
Skyhook-balloon shape, which Ruppelt redrew again to show how
they were so
similar to a Skyhook which he drew right next to them. Yet it was 2
HOURS AFTER SUNSET
and a Skyhook could not possibly be seen.
The covered-up THEODOLITE TRACKING from Godman Field raises
potentially
insuperable problems for a Skyhook theory and of course it
totally excludes
Venus (which was 40-50 degs away), which could hardly be seen in
daylight anyway.
The THEODOLITE TRACKING was made by 1st Lt Paul I. Orner,
Airways and Air
Communications Service, ATC (Air Transport Command),
Detachment 733-5, Air
Force Base Unit (103rd MCS Sq), Godman Field, he was the Detachment
Commander.
Lt Orner was in the Control Tower during the Mantell chase and
he records a
number of key facts, including the fact that Mantell's wingman
Lt Clements
refueled and went back up to search for the UFO and for Mantell, but with
oxygen, went 100 miles out, (up to 33,000 ft) which would be over past
Franklin
where Mantell had crashed (but no one had heard the report yet) and
just over the
Kentucky/Tenn border. Yet he saw absolutely nothing, he
saw no object, as
he reported to the Tower at about 4:45 PM. If it was a
Skyhook balloon why
didn't Clements see it?
TD:
Did he not report seeing it at 1515? We need a ground track
for the
balloon(s).
B:
Who is the "he"? Clements? Yeah he saw the bright
light Mantell was
chasing, at around 3:15 PM. I am waiting to read the full
Accident Report before
making any further effort to reconstruct the Mantell part of the
sightings that
day. Too many of the statements in the BB files on Mantell
seem incomplete,
and the Accident Report Summary seems to refer to much fuller
accounts than are
found in BB files.
Why didn't Mantell and his 3 wingmen see the Skyhook on their
way in to the
Louisville/Godman area? In fact the Mantell flight was
SPECIFICALLY ASKED
by Godman Tower when they approached Godman if they had seen the
object on
their way in!!! This isn't just assumption based on a hope,
but a specific query
put to them while they were still in flight!
Godman base Commander Col. Hix was phoned about the object
sighted by the
Tower at about 2:15 PM and he arrived at the Tower at about
2:20 PM to see
for himself. Sure enough he saw the stationary white object
at about azimuth
215 degs (bet. SW and SSW) about 1/4 Full Moon in angular
size. When viewed
through the 8x binoculars Col Hix could sometimes see RED COLOR
bordering the top or
the bottom. Skyhooks in midafternoon sunlight are WHITE
NOT RED. Only
sunset lighting gives them a fiery red coloration. Col Hix and
the Tower personnel
lost sight of the object at 3:50 PM when it went behind a
cloud, and it had
remained "stationary for 1-1/2 hours" according to Hix's
statement. They
did not know yet that Capt Mantell had already crashed at about
3:18 PM. About
this time (maybe 3:45) Lt Clements had refueled and went up in his
F-51D to look
for Mantell and the UFO and he was told by the Tower that the
object had
disappeared behind a cloud but gave him the last known
heading, apparently
220 degs (I'm still trying to verify and correct the bad typos in AF's
poorly retyped
copies of key witness statements like Clements' and many
others). Then they
told him the adjust heading by 5 degs to the left, apparently
to the 215
azimuth at which the Tower had watched the UFO for 1-1/2 hours.
(Mantell had
reportedly followed a 210 heading but all these figures need
to be carefully
checked.)
Lt Orner also saw the small white object stationary obejct in
the SW sky
from the Tower with Col Hix and the many other AF officers and
personnel. Orner
said that through binoculars it looked like a white parachute
with bright
sunlight reflecting off the top. Sounds like a SKYHOOK
balloon!!! EXCEPT
that he too saw "RED LIGHT" on the lower part of it.
TD:
The red color fringes could possibly be attributed to poor optics.
Two
objections
would be that military binoculars are probably pretty quality, and
"red" is
mentioned
often in the descriptions.
B:
I don't buy the "poor optics" explanation. The red light is
always described
as on TOP or on BOTTOM and never to the SIDES or in the MIDDLE of
the object
-- and this was described at MULTIPLE BASES by MULTIPLE witnesses
using
DIFFERENT OPTICS on that date. They used these optics on
other dates and didn't see
objects with red tinges on the top or bottom.
This is Lt. Orner's report of his THEODOLITE TRACKING of the
UFO from Godman
Field which began at about 5:35 PM (CST), or 1/2 HOUR AFTER
SUNSET for a
high-altitude Skyhook balloon (almost an hour after sunset on
the ground):
"At about 1735 CST I returned to the Control Tower and [saw] a
bright light
different than a star at a position of about 240° azimuth
and 8° elevation
from the Control Tower. This was a round object.
It seemed to have a
dark spot in the center and the object moved north and
disappeared from
the horizon at a point 250° from the Tower. The
unusual fact about this
object was the fact that it remained visible and glowed
through the haze
near the Earth when no other stars were visible and did not
disappear
until it went below the level of the Earth in a manner similar
to the
sun or moon setting. This object was viewed and tracked
with the Weather
Station theodolite from the hangar roof."
TD:
If Venus were a crescent, the view through a small theodolite
telescope might
show a dark middle due to low resolution, but Venus was 85%
illuminated,
not a crescent. See above also.
B:
Another problem with Venus is that it doesn't disappear in one
day, it
reappears day after day, week after week. Godman Field and
other bases watched for
the UFO the next night Jan 8, 1948, and saw NOTHING. I am
still trying to
relocate where I read that.
We now know that the 1-6-48 Skyhook launch from Milaca, Minn.,
(NOT Camp
Ripley 43 miles away, that was g.d. lie) reached its MAXIMUM
HEIGHT of
80,000 ft in 3 hours of launch, or presumably at about 11 AM on the
6th. It could
therefore not go any higher. Thus the nonsense about
100,000 ft is sheer
falsehood.
It had gone almost DUE SOUTH from Minnesota, slightly to the
W, at about
190 degs. It did not get tracked heading SE towards Kentucky
so it is anyone's
guess where it actually went, unless there are lots of news
reports charting
its course along the way. There are no upper winds data
in 1948 from 80,000
ft so no way to check using meteorological records.
That means that when Lt Orner tracked the object by Godman's
theodolite at
5:35 PM CST at 240° azimuth and 8° elevation, if it
was a Skyhook balloon at
80,000 ft it had to be about 100 miles away to the WSW, which
would be the
vicinity of HOPKINSVILLE, Kentucky. YES THAT
HOPKINSVILLE from the 1955
incident.
It would NOT be anywhere near Nashville, Tenn., where famed
astronomer Carl
Seyfert sighted from 4:30 to 4:45 PM CST what he called a
balloon with cable
to a suspended basket (the Skyhook pictures of 1-6-48 do not show
a "basket" or
any other large object hanging beneath, only relatively tiny
payloads).
TD:
If Seyfert's description is wrong, perhaps he saw a different
balloon, and
the balloon from Milaca was near Hopkinsville.
B:
You can't have it both ways, you can't have the same object BOTH
be Venus and
the Skyhook!! The only reason I even brought up Lt Orner's
theodolite
tracking with the subject of a Skyhook was to show the absurdity
of it -- not to
seriously argue it really was the Skyhook and that now that
somehow discredits
astronomer Seyfert! Your argument has been that Orner
tracked VENUS in the
theodolite!! Here you seem to be saying Orner tracked the
SKYHOOK and maybe then
Seyfert was wrong or it was "a different balloon." But
Skyhooks could NOT BE
SEEN IN THE DARK!!! They were lit up by the sun! An
amateur astronomer in
the Nashville area actually timed th high-altitude disappearance
of the Skyhook
at excatly 5:12 PM. It was DARK and GONE after that!
Clearly Seyfert DID see the Skyhook to the South from Nashville at
about the
same time observers in Columbia saw it to their North, at about
4-4:30 PM
(CST).
The fundamental stumbling block to any IFO explanation is Godman's
tracking
of the same bright white object with a red tinge at 215 degs
azimuth (about SW
/ SSW) from about 2:15 PM till disappearing behind a cloud at 3:50
PM, a half
hour after Mantell crashed chasing it. At about 140 miles
from the Skyhook
between Nashville and Columbia it is now agreed it could not
possibly have been
seen. Even if the Skyhook could be put say 20 miles south of
Godman Field
that does not get it 92 miles away to Mantell's crash site near
the Ky-Tenn
border near Franklin. And if a ridiculous 300 mph Skyhook
balloon was postulated
that could just keep ahead of Mantell during the 90-mile chase, it
would still
not explain how Godman could still see the Skyhook from 90+ miles
and continue
to see it for 1/2 hour more after that, when it presumably then
moves south
over Nashville (where however no one sees it to the North, only to
the South).
The only way a balloon could possibly fit is if it was 300-1,500
FEET in
size, and over the Nashville-Columbia area. In that case it
would be large enough
to be seen from Godman and by the Mantell flight and could still
be seen
after 15-20 mins of 300 mph chase by the F-51's which would not be
able to quite
reach it if it was actually 140 miles away. (Don't quote me
on the exact speed
and time of the F-51's as I said I'm waiting for the Accident
Report for more
satisfactory data.)
After all the very first witness reports received by Godman at
about 1:00 PM
stated it was a 250-300 foot object traveling at a "pretty fast
clip" (but to
the W, wrong way for us).
TD:
Madisonville reported a balloon too.
The report of that balloon tells everything, but the time,
distance, azimuth,
and
elevation. Without a distance none of the other numbers reported
can be
trusted.
I question the 1320 time, because it is also the time of the
initial
Madisonville
report, and the balloon seems to have been reported later to the
State Police
at Franklin after Mantell's crash. The page in the Project Sign
microfilm is
a Sign
summary, and there seems to be no original document to check the
facts
against.
Madisonville is about as far away from Nashville as Godman Field
was, so a
balloon near Nashville would not be visible from Madisonville,
according to
the
latest figuring.
Even worse, when Lt Orner lost track of the UFO in the
theodolite it was at
the horizon (0 degs elevation) still farther north at 250 degs
azimuth. An
80,000 ft balloon would have to be at about 350 MILES away at
that point
over southern Missouri!!! Even more discrepant with Seyfert's
sighting in
Nashville, which would also be about 350 miles away. AND IT IS IN
PITCH DARKNESS!!!!!
The Skyhook could not have been seen!!!
Finally there is a question about the SIZE of the Skyhook
launched on
1-6-48, which affects whether Godman or Mantell could even have seen
the balloon.
Claims of 100 ft size are belied by the tracking report which
states that
the dozen or so balloons launched there from late 1947 to early
1949 were 70 ft
and 72.8 ft balloons, not 100 ft. Also unclear and being
checked is whether
this 70-72.8 ft size applies to the entire package or just the gas
bag that is
lit up by reflected sunlight. Photos of the 1-6-48 launch
show that about half
its length was the essentially invisible cabling to the
relatively tiny
payloads and half the gas bag, which might mean the envelope was only
about 35 ft in
size.
Simple physics and human physiological optics shows that the
Minimum Angle
of Resolution of about 1 arcminute (for normal 20/20 vision)
would limit the
maximum distance a 35 ft Skyhook balloon gas bag could be seen
is only about
23 MILES!!! One could not see ANY details, it would be a
mere PINPOINT at that
maximum possible distance for Skyhook visibility. That
would raise the
question of how on earth Mantell could see a Skyhook from 90 miles away
in order to
chase it 90 miles to his death.
TD:
The relatively limited visibility zone, even for a 70 ft balloon,
effectively
isolates the various reporting cities that day. That is, few of
the reporting
cities could see any of the other reporting cities, because they
are 45 miles
or
more away from each other. I speak of Madisonville, Owensville,
Godman Field,
Nashville, Lexington, and Marysville. Balloons and anomalous
aircraft can
move
around, of course, even at high speed, but Godman Field had its
reportedly
stationary, "high in the sky" object in sight for an hour and a
half. The
basic
facts, reasonable on their own, just don't work well together in
this case.
B:
You mean "Maysville" and actually that may be an AF/Ruppelt error
for
"Mannsville" which was southeast of Godman, though the AF docxs
keep spelling it with
one "n" as "Mansville" (and "Maysville" would then be a typo where
the one
"n" became a "y" in some versions).
As a "normal" UFO case we would not be having so much
trouble. The
confounding aspect of this case is that it _seems_ a UFO (or more
than one)
deliberately mimicked various IFO's but for fun (so to speak)
kicked in a few completely
impossible appearances for the IFO it was imitating -- the
mimicking of a
Skyhook is done as if it was far larger in size than any ever
launched in 1948 (or
perhaps ever launched even up till today in 2006) and with
maneuverability
and speed impossible for a wind-driven balloon. This seems
faintly like the
1896-7 Airship Wave that just screams "powered dirigible" except
for none had
been invented yet and none would ever have the speed and
maneuverability
allegedly seen in 1896-7 (and then too complicated by hoaxes and
Venus sightings).
The mimicking of Venus is done under the overcast when the actual
Venus could
not be seen, and is interrupted with high-speed maneuverability
which does
not comfortably match autokinesis eyeball movements, and a
pseudo-setting motion
that does not quite match celestial bodies setting below the
horizon (heads S
instead of N, angular motion not the right amount, etc.).
It's as if it's an intelligence test designed to see how close to
an IFO
"they" can get before we get so confused we can't figure out what
was really going
on. It plays into the debunker mentality by provoking a
prematurely
dismissive attitude so that the details that conflict with IFO
will not be
investigated or will just be ignored -- as they pretty much have
been for the past 58
years (with a little help from AF coverup, but that does not
account for the last
30 years when the AF files have been public and none of this ever
came out
before).
