Hi Brad
It seems to me unsatisfactory that for
Apr 27 we have a report of a height but no azimuth-elevation figures,
nor even an angular rate; whilst on the other hand for May 24 we have
exact azimuth-elevation figures and can infer accurate angular rates,
but we have no triangulated range!
I find it strange that Mitchell
only says speed was "indeterminable", given that angular
size, angular rate, altitude, and slant-range to a map location "over the Holloman range between the base and
Tularosa Peak" are all supposedly known. Why would you cheerfully
affirm the existence of impossible fast-moving 30-foot objects at
impossible altitudes, yet be a bit embarrassed about the exact speed,
so shy that you invented a ridiculous lie about speed being
"indeterminable" when this makes your own report internally
inconsistent?
I don't necessarily buy it, but if we
are accepting that Mitchell was of a mind to fudge something in his
report then it seems at least as likely to me that he was aware that at
least one of the four conclusions in his para.3 was not really as
strongly based as it ought to be, and he was uncomfortable about the
implied speed - not because he thought "the truth" would be too hard
for people to take (or whatever) but just because he was uncomfortable
about the reliability of all the figures.
He says that the triangulation rests
on "a single azimuth angle from station M-7". That reads to me as
implying something less than perfectly satisfactory about the
triangulation. Maybe he had a suspicion that this "single azimuth
angle" was not enough, but was asked (in the reference "conversation
between Col. baines and Cpt. Bryant") not to speculate but to just "do
the best with what you've got".
As for May 24, your BB UNK
summary gives terminal azimuth and elevation only for one object
filmed for 6 frames and a different object filmed for 74 frames, saying
no triangulation was possible. I reckon the angular rate in the
first case is roughly about 0.7 deg/sec, in the second case around 0.1
degree/sec. At 150,000 ft this would be roughly equivalent to about
1200 mph and 200 mph respectively, but the objects could be at any
height. At 30,000 ft the speeds would be 240 and 40 mph. The
jet stream core tends to be around 30-40,000 ft. Jet stream winds have
been known to exceed 300 mph and could shift a balloon at 240 mph.
Not likely maybe, because the
average N American jet speed in October is probably a third of
this speed, and the core is also probably a lot further south; also the
inferred directions are N and S whereas the average jet direction will
be E-W. But without looking in detail maybe it isn't wise to say
impossible. And if there's no reliable height data at all (which there
definitely isn't in this May case) these could have been 12 mph
thistledowns at 1500 ft for all we know. The operators may have been
"reliable" in tracking rockets, but does this mean that they're
dependable interpreters of anything they might see in the sky? I don't
buy that either.
Martin
Brad: I don't see a problem with a single azimuth reading from
theodolite station M-7 on the Apr 27 case, after all it was a reading
from a theodolite by someone accustomed to taking such readings from
fast-moving rocket launches and was not from human guesswork, and the 4
objects were closely enough spaced that they all fell within the field
of view. Mitchell wasn't "fudging" anything by simply not
reporting what he felt was a fantastic number. No doubt Kenneth
Arnold regretted he ever told anyone his 1800 mph estimate (which he
kept progressively chopping down to 1200 mph still to no one's
satisfaction) and I believe he made comments to that effect.
Also you must consider the extreme sensitivity of the White Sands UFO
trackings which were to the point that AF Cambridge Labs made strenuous
efforts for 2 YEARS to get Dr Mirarchi criminally prosecuted for
alluding to the trackings in the press. Ruppelt and Col Oder lied
about the trackings to the Robertson Panel, telling them there was only
one lousy photo obtained in total (Ruppelt lied in his book claiming he
did tell the Panel, which is refuted by the Durant Report).
And finally, there is also the matter of classified oral briefings
filling in what they did not want to put down on paper, and also
Holloman deferring to AFCRL to do the full analyses. AFCRL
personnel were frequently at Holloman-White Sands in 1950 finding out
firsthand; Mirarchi happened to be on base on April 27-28, 1950,
right when the first tracking incident occurred and arranged to have
the film developed and a report sent to him for FURTHER ANALYSIS.
We don't have any of Mirarchi's analyses. These may be where more
detailed uncensored discussion takes place.
Although I don't have a precise FOV estimate for the Askania
theodolites my impression is that the May 24 objects were on the order
of magnitude of at least 1/1000 radian in size, therefore IF (a BIG IF)
they were at say 30,000 ft then they were at least 30 ft in size (slant
range actually much greater so at least 50 ft or so).
But what is the jet stream like in MAY not October?
B: That's right, all you need is the second azimuth to give you
the actual distance. The azimuth is crucial because you need to
know if this second sighting location's sighting line cuts across the
first station's sighting lines, otherwise you don't know you have a
triangulation.
Yes, you can triangulate with only an
azimuth reading, but can we guarantee that the object(s) filmed from
the two separate sites were the same object(s)? Did Mitchell believe
this to be certain? Maybe he did, but then why didn't he have the
courage of his convictions and decline to follow through on stating the
implied speed? A pretty exact lower bound could have been
calculated from az and el at P-10 plus "a single azimuth reading" at
M-7. This alone would have been important information to submit in
Mitchell's report (which states that it is information
submitted pursuant to request, not that it is just a covering letter or
abstract of information detailed in inclosures - there are no
inclosures listed). But more, an exact true rate could be given by
reducing a similar set of az and el readings from M-7, or at least
the full range of azimuth readings. Yet there was only "a single
azimuth reading". This suggests to me that the reason Mitchell
describes the speed as "indeterminable" - which after all means
literally that he couldn't determine it - may be because
information from M-7 wasn't sufficient to allow him to determine it.
My point is this: The film from P-10
station yielded elevation and azimuth readings (plural) "on
four objects". Yet the mathematical reduction unit only produced
"a single azimuth reading" from the M-7 film. If you had azimuth
readings on 4 objects from M-7 you'd either say that or leave the
reader to assume that. Yet Mitchell separates his numbered paragraphs
in such a way as to tell us that the "azimuth and elevation angles on
four objects" came only from P-10 , whereas the information from M-7
was limited to "a single azimuth angle". I read this as meaning that
one ought to have expected, or would have liked to have had, multiple
azimuth angles from M-7. but didn't.
Well maybe Mitchell means that he is
using "a single [average] azimuth value" taken from the M-7
film? But if you are selecting a representative average azimuth value
from the M-7 film then you might say that. On the other
hand, if there was only one reading to use - because there
was only a distinct image on one frame, for example, or because there
was instrument fault, or because the azimuth rate of the M-7
object was actually zero - then you might say that the
information you have is only "a single azimuth reading" and you might
also be guarded in placing too much reliance on inferred high speed.
Of course if the images on the two
films were definitely of the same phenomena then even one clear frame
with a reliable azimuth reading would be sufficient. But do we know
this? A cluster of 4 objects sounds quite distinctive, but it isn't
clear to me that the "four objects" filmed from P-10 were filmed
simultaneously, although this impression might be gained from
a remark in the letter to Mirarchi which refers generally
to occasions when objects had sometimes been seen in groups. The MRU
report actually says that "azimuth and elevation angles were recorded
on four objects" at P-10, but we don't know what the various angles
recorded were, so it isn't possible to say if this was one shot of a
cluster of 4 or if 4 objects were tracked sequentially. If 4
separate objects were filmed how distinctive was the similarity between
these and the object or objects filmed by M-7? Can we guarantee
that the "single azimuth reading" from M-7 related to the same
object(s)? Maybe only one object was filmed at all from M-7; maybe
the math unit were tasked to do the reduction (as per referenced
conversation) on the working assumption that the M-7 film
showed one of the same group of four filmed at P-10?
As Brad says, other unavailable
documentation probably fleshes out the context of this brief report.
Indeed. I wonder what it would tell us? Bruce says the
MRU wouldn't have bothered to do the work at all unless they
thought it was valid, which is possibly true, but there seem to be too
many dusty corners for this to be called "proof" in my opinion, though
I don't deny that it's very intriguing.
Martin
PS Yes the date was May - sorry, slip
of the finger, mind full of Minot just now! The mean jet
latitude would probably have been somewhere over the S of USA - it
oscillates between summer and winter extremes of around 25 degsN and 45
degsN respectively I believe, but it shifts around a lot.
Martin,
I don't read this that way at all. The "single reading" comment
was not meant as an aspersion on the quality of the reading but as a
comment about the lack of getting OTHER STATIONS' readings. There
were several theodolite stations in operation for a missile or bomb
test but due to the brevity of the UFO sighting not all of them caught
sight of the UFO in time to get a reading or film (some crews might
have been reluctant to expend their film on an unknown PRIOR to their
assigned mission of the MX-776A Shrike air-to-ground missile test,
whereas had the UFO occurred AFTER the test they might have felt free
to use all remaining film up on the UFO).
I interpret the comment about indeterminable but high speed to mean it
was not a matter of difficulty in calculation or shakiness in the
determination but a flat refusal to believe the number and
unwillingness to commit to paper, just like Kenneth Arnold and his
initial 1800 mph figure which he cut down again and again to 1200 mph,
and regretted making public in the first place.
Brad
I admit that you could be right. My
problem is that I think I could be right too. Whatever my instincts, I
just don't know. As long as there's interpretation involved we can't
surely invoke this case as "proof" of large high-altitude hypersonic
UFOs? I just don't think enough info can be squeezed out of the
documents, not enough to take that much weight anyway. But I admit it's
a matter of judgement and I probably don't have all the background info
on Twinkle that you and Bruce do.
Martin
Thanks for the message. You wrote:
>I admit that you could be right. My problem is that I think I
could be
right too. Whatever my instincts, I just don't know. As long as
there's
interpretation involved we can't surely invoke this case as
"proof" of
large high-altitude hypersonic UFOs? I just don't think enough
info can be
squeezed out of the documents, not enough to take that much weight
anyway.
But I admit it's a matter of judgement and I probably don't have
all the
background info on Twinkle that you and Bruce do.
<
At the very least one can say that the information about the
triangulation
was ignored if not intentionally covered up. I earlier
posted the
story of the Project Twinkle report by Eltermann which cited
the dates of
the sightings and said "no information was gained."
As Brad has pointed out, even Ruppelt covered it up.
But why would the White Sands people have even bothered to report
the event
to Project Twinkle (i.e., to Mirarchi) if they hadn't been
sufficiently startled at the sighting to classify it as a sighting
of
"things" of interest to Project Twinkle? (At the time
of the sighting
Mirarchi was the project leader; he left the project before the
final
report was written).
Some more devil's advocacy for you:
> At the very least one can say that the information about the
triangulation
> was ignored if not intentionally covered up. I earlier
posted
the
> story of the Project Twinkle report by Eltermann which
cited
the dates of
> the sightings and said "no information was gained."
> As Brad has pointed out, even Ruppelt covered it up.
Elterman's opinion might be just a judgment, mistaken or not,
based on appreciation of some ambiguity in the April 27
triangulation - for which one can argue there is circumstantial
evidence in Mitchell's report, as I suggested. Not sure about
Ruppelt, from memory; must read him again. But if he said there
was only one picture, which was inconclusive (or words to that
effects), then that may be strictly imprecise but wouldn't
materially misrepresent the situation (only one inconclusive
_event_) as now known to have been stated by Elterman at the
time - and as speculatively inferred now (by me). That's to say,
Ruppelt only "covered up" (in this instance - I know he did
elsewhere) if you are right; but if you are wrong then he
substantially reflected the final project director's own report
and din't cover up. Ruppelt's words are not independent evidence
for your case since their interpretation depends on whether your
case is sound or not.
> But why would the White Sands people have even bothered to
report the event
> to Project Twinkle (i.e., to Mirarchi) if they hadn't
been
> sufficiently startled at the sighting to classify it as a
sighting of
> "things" of interest to Project Twinkle?
I suppose the project was seen as Mirarchi's baby and he was
apparently disposed to be optimistic about it. Maybe this was
understood? Maybe Mitchell, and/or those to whom he was directly
answerable and who asked (presumably in the referenced
conversation) that Mitchell report the findings to Lt. Albert,
were keen to have at least one "interesting" result to report to
the Director after all that time? The Apr 27 incident maybe gave
them the chance to do that, provided they were just slightly
economical when it came to acknowledging the ambiguity in the M-7
triangulation datum? I'm speculating I know - can't help it! ;-)
You need to re-read my Ruppelt Coverup
paper. I reveal my chance meeting and interview with Mr Black
Projects himself, Dr. Frederic "Fritz" Oder, where he tried to pull
that "never got anything" crap on me about TWINKLE and I nailed him
cold with the April 27, 1950, triangulation (which I recounted for him
in detail). Oder did NOT respond by saying as you would have
these officials supposedly believing "Oh you're wrong that was a
mistake there never was a triangulation or a reliable one," but instead
suddenly Oder got very quiet for a moment. Then Oder said there
might be a real unexplainable phenomenon behind UFO's. In other
words I caught him redhanded and he conceded that the bottom line was
that the UFO phenomenon was REAL.
Ruppelt lied his head off about the White Sands films to the CIA and
others, telling the CIA Robertson Panel only "TWO FRAMES of film
showing nothing distinguishable" was all that was obtained. He
had the two reports by Mitchell and Bryant in his files at BB, proving
otherwise, and he even recounts his extensive efforts to obtain them
(both in his book and in Grudge/BB Status Reports), including his
talking DIRECTLY to the Holloman AFB personnel about the sightings
FIRSTHAND, so he knew what was in them and what the truth was,
regardless of official lies in Elterman's report (which he may even
have overlooked, no indication he read that one or paid attention to
it, it certainly did NOT say "TWO FRAMES" so Ruppelt did NOT get that
from Elterman).
We can prove that Ruppelt also had the Holloman July 1951 report with
its prints of many Askania theodolite frames of UFO's at White Sands in
1950, which we know for a fact because he or his staff cut up copies of
the report and pasted them into the various White Sands/Holloman
incident case files.
Unmentioned by Bruce for some reason, Oder himself is quoted in the AF
documents in 1951 as pushing for Mirarchi's federal prosecution on
grounds that Mirarchi had allegedly revealed classified SPEED-ALTITUDE
tracking data on UFO's. That proves that Oder and AFCRL back in
1951 KNEW there was a SUCCESSFUL TRIANGULATION at White Sands, and one
so important that they went to the extreme lengths of trying to get
Mirarchi thrown in prison in order to maintain the coverup!
(Apparently they were worried that Mirarchi would talk more to the
press and reveal the UFO triangulation and so they were trying to
intimidate him and shut him up.)