Translate

samedi 10 juin 2017

The Lubbock Lights famous Photographs (by Carl Hart on August 31, 1951): A "neglected" Hypothesis...



*
**
****

Les fameuses Photographies de Lubbock (par Carl Hart, le 31 août 1951) : une Hypothèse négligée...


Cette hypothèse est un travail de mon ami Nablator / This hypothesis is the work of my friend Nablator. 

The work made by Nablator is available in English at the ATS Forum in a shorter version.



On retrouve un des clichés de Carl Hart dans la bannière du gros forum francophone "les mystères des OVNI" - ...

*
**
****

Les photographies de Lubbock, prises par le jeune Carl Hart fin août 1951 sont relativement fameuses dans le microcosme ufologique. Nous nous attacherons ici uniquement à ces photographies, et non pas aux observations elles-mêmes (voir une bonne et courte revue de ces observations en Français sur le site RR0).

Il s'agit d'une série de quatre photographies, pour lesquelles l'US Air Force n'a décelé "aucune fraude".


Less quatre clichés, source.


Il est important de noter, que quand celles-ci ont été montrées aux témoins, ceux-ci ont déclaré que cela ne ressemblait pas à ce qu'ils avaient vu ; Et, notamment, que les lumières qu'ils avaient observées étaient si faibles, qu'ils doutaient qu'elles puissent être visibles sur une photographie ou imprimer une pellicule... 

Alors, Carl Hart a t-il photographié tout autre chose, ou bien s'agit-il d'un canular ?

A ma connaissance, personne n'est arrivé à reproduire de tels clichés, s'il s'agissait d'oiseaux, de papillons, etc. (hypothèses parfois proposées pour la série d'observations). 

A mon impression de photographe amateur (et seulement, ce qui ne prouve rien), j'ai du mal à comprendre comment on peut obtenir de tels clichés d'objets décrits comme en mouvement, finalement peu lumineux, et de surcroît une série de quatre au total avec un tel appareil à ré-armement manuel (sûrement un 35mm classique de l'époque). 
De plus, des clichés "si bien" cadrés, que l'objet ait été proche (et donc de taille réelle imposante ?) ou non (plus petite taille réelle, et donc le 35 mm se transformant en gros zoom).

L'hypothèse proposée par Nablator quelques années auparavant (circa 2012) et peu visible sur le net ou ailleurs...


Nablator nous propose de regarder attentivement ces fameuses photographies inexpliquées, inexplicables...

Et principalement les deux premiers clichés, que nous noterons A et B par commodité.

Le cliché A :



Le cliché B auquel on a fait subir une légère rotation pour la démonstration. (Cliché B + Rotation).




Les lumières des clichés A et B sont parfaitement superposables... Excepté la légère rotation et certainement un effet de bougé sur le cliché A.
De plus, l'épaisseur des taches lumineuses surexposées sur la photo B est proportionnelle à l'intensité lumineuse sur la photo A. Les positions des lumières les unes par rapport aux autres n'ont donc pas bougé d'un poil pendant que le photographe tournait le levier pour réarmer (c'était manuel à l'époque)... contrairement aux autres photos.

Carl Hart n'a pas réalisé ses photos avec un appareil en mode rafale. Il a dû ré-armer son Kodak, une opération manuelle qui prends du temps. Le premier INSTAMATIC équipé d'une avance de film de puissance à ressort (un mécanisme qui ne brillait pas non plus pas sa rapidité) n'était disponible que dans les années soixante.

Hart a dit qu'il n'avait eu le temps de prendre que "deux photographies du deuxième vol, et quand les lumières sont revenues une troisième fois, il a pris trois autres". Les OVNI attendaient-ils, ne bougeaient-ils pas du tout, pour qu'il prenne la deuxième photo ?

Cliquez sur le lien suivant pour une image animée de cette surimposition des clichés A et B:


Il est dès lors possible et vraisemblable qu'il puisse s'agir d'un canular avec un dispositif assez simple en réalité.

L'utilisation d'un même cache troué, que l'on met face à une source lumineuse (lampe, fenêtre) et qui a été utilisé pour les deux premières photos, l'une avec un bougé, l'autre sans. Pour les deux autres clichés, il suffit de réaliser deux autres caches...


Gilles Fernandez, June 2017.




dimanche 30 avril 2017

The Vancouver UFO photograph (1937) by Leonard Lamoureux...

La Photographie...

Agrandissement...

*
**
****
Defects in film emulsion and lens defects can also cause UFO to appear on prints / Des défauts de l'émulsion de film et des défauts de la lentille peuvent également provoquer l'apparition d'OVNI sur des photographies.
*
**
****

Cet article est pour le moment une version de travail - Draft Version -

Cette photographie, datant de 1937, prise à Vancouver (Canada) par Léonard Lamoureux est souvent présentée dans les tabloïds (ici en Français) ou parfois dans le microcosme ufologique comme l'une des toutes premières photographies d'OVNI, en ce sens qu'elle date d'avant juin 1947 et l'observation de Kenneth Arnold. A ce titre de ce thème "récurrent" en ufologie des "premières photographies d'OVNI", on peut consulter cette page réalisée par Dominique Caudron.

Un journaliste m'a demandé ce que j'en pensais. Honnêtement, je ne connaissais pas cette photographie (il y en a tant dans le "corpus").

Mais elle m'évoquait immédiatement un défaut ou artefact assez classique qui peut apparaître durant le processus de développement des photographies argentiques, et ce genre d'accident qui arrive parfois lors des phases de développement argentique. Il s'agit, en gros d'éclaboussures (splash en Anglais) durant le processus chimique de développement, faisant alors apparaître ce genre de défaut et marques circulaires ou en forme de goutte. Comme par exemple, une "goutte de produit révélateur ou fixateur qui tombe sur l'épreuve et que l'on chasse rageusement du doigt ou avec un chiffon et qui ayant déjà atteint les couches inférieures du positif laisse une trace dégradée et indélébile et une légère traînée dans le sens où on a essayé d'évacuer le liquide" (communication personnelle).

Le montage suivant illustre ce type d'artefact (source de la capture de gauche, Artifact Guide, Kodak).






J'essaierais d'ajouter d'autres exemples de tels artefacts et défauts photographiques (Il existe une section dans le projet BlueBook qui les évoque et en montre).


Une photographie de 1953 que l'on explique aussi par ce type d'artefact (source)... 

Hélas, il semble que le négatif ait été perdu pour valider totalement cette hypothèse. Bien sûr, il y a le témoignage attenant, mais de seconde main (la fille), semblant indiquer que le phénomène aurait été vu à l’œil nu, ou encore qu'elle aurait vu le négatif, mais aussi que cet événement était souvent discuté en famille...

Vancouver étant une ville de forte densité (même en 1937), il semble étonnant qu'il n'y ait pas d'autres témoignages (indépendants) d'un tel phénomène. De plus, a-t-on des traces que cette photographie fût discutée ou a étonné avant que le phénomène OVNI ne devienne un fait culturel (post-1947) ?

J'en doute : la plupart du temps, ces prétendues photographies d'OVNI "pré-Arnoldiennes" sont exhumées a posteriori, à l'instar des photographies prétendues de "foo-fighters" (voir ce précèdent billet).

Et pour aller plus loin :

Film & Camera Defects sur le site Caelestia (Galerie).

Norway in UFO photographs: The first catalogue par Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos and Ole Jonny Brænne.


*
**
****

Gilles Fernandez, April 2017.




mercredi 15 mars 2017

The Coming of the (Term) "Flying Saucers"..

The coming of the term flying saucers. Why/how the term "flying saucers" have been used the 26 June 1947 in very few instances in comparison to later ones? Two possibilities (not exhaustive list then) are proposed.

It is a draft I have from 2010 I completed a little last night due to an interesting discussion in a social media. I will probably add several other things I have in another hard saucer (oups, disc^^).

You can clic to the images joined to enlarge them...





*
**
****

In a semi-private UFO discussion group, this very interesting topic (at least for me) have emerged. Why in the editions of the 26th June, there are very few mentions or uses of the "nominal syntagma" flying saucers and then why and how rare writers or journalists have made this choice in the editions of this day?

In fact, Bill Bequette not really "invented" or "coined" the term (he seems to have used "saucer-like", see after, in the news he dispatched to the national Associated Press network at Portland). As the strict term is at my knowledge not really present in his articles.

The Arnold report or sighting appeared first in the 25 June morning edition (East Oregonian), but the term was not used for the best of my humble knowledge until the following day (or?) and then when all AP journalist may have read the dispatched news and decided it must reach their own newspaper. 

You must wait "until" 26 June to see the term (again the terms flying saucer together, not saucer only). 

But it is in reality really rare that day (I mean as relative to the other words used). 

When I searched newspaper articles for my 2010 book about Roswell and about the 1947 UFO wave chapters, I found only 2 of them using the term flying saucer(s) that 26 June. Of course, some 26 June articles used "saucer(s)" alone, or words as saucer-shape, saucer flying, saucer-like.

Another investigator shared yesterday in this discussion he have only collected 5 articles using the term flying saucer(s) this 26 June in the newspaper (for a total amount of more than 18k newspaper collection during the 1947 "wave" !!). Maybe there were few other instances, but it was not a "flying saucers" word invasion that 26 June in the newspaper, so to speak...

In fact, other words have or seems to have been "preferred" like flying discs or flying disks or others (see after). Discs or Disks are probably and seem very more prevalent the first days of the 1947 UFO wave covers or articles devoted on in newspaper than flying saucer(s) - even if it is my impression not based on numbers / statistics -.





Flying saucer(s) term/nominal syntagma seems or must wait a little more days to "establish itself" as a "common term" to name these "objects in the sky". But it was used in few instances early the 26th June: why and how its choice by some writers?


Something then happened but why/what/how? 

The clue is maybe or imho (not only) under the dispatch to the whole Associated Press network of the news sent to Portland antenna by Bequette. 

But again, Bequette seems to never have used "flying saucer", only the term "saucer-like" among what may be the key words of his AP news dispatch (like pilot. 1200 m/h, missiles and few other key words).




And after, and relatively in an INDEPENDANT behavior/process (at least this 26 June before a snow ball effect), some RARE journalists/writers used the term flying saucer(s) probably when reading "saucer-like" in the AP story dispatched (?).  And saucer-like had "echoed" for very few of them and evolved to choose a term more "catchy"?

But echoed/ing from what such journalists/writers may already or maybe have in their mind/consciousness? 

A simple explanation (and the one I would prefer) is that, from the AP news dispatched, each writer or journalist this day choose his own title or content due to personal motivation, desire, preference, journalistic creativity.

Some choices (probably the most used that 26 June) were group of words like pie pans, mystery planes ,mystery missiles, or whiz planes, Etc. Few other used the term saucer maybe because saucer was present in the AP news (probably saucer-like) and after all, alone or saucer-like, saucer-shape, etc.

Very few will use flying saucers together (because it flew and the term saucer present? So a "logic" combination for some writers?) like it is the case for newspaper in Fort Myers, Cleveland, Oakland, Baltimore or Philadelphia this 26 June. There are few others (in Chicago I think, see before the first image/capture).

Then, flying saucer may have emerged in a vast choice of possibilities and then would be "only" due to "hazard" and all possibilities of writers and journalists creativity facing the AP news and its content. Useless then to choose a reason or "roots" for the very few who have decided flying saucer(s) in the title or lines. Flying saucers would be a simply hazard during and one the product of the creativity cognitive processing of the journalists and writers reading the AP news, for the 26 June headlines or text, like there are other titles or syntagma preferred by others. Aka a simple result product of the inter-individual differences (writers/journalists) and variability.

But there is another possibility?

When I was writing my 2010 book about Roswell and the chapter focusing on the 1947 wave, I was attracted by a 40's (1940) New York Times article titled WOOD, FIELD AND STREAM; Wind a Big Handicap, by Raymond R. Camp Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. (); October 07, 1940. 

I was making researches when and where (or if?) the term have been already in use, but for other thing and in particular by journalists or in newspaper. At this stage, I didn't know several softwares or data bank of newspapers. Only "googling" or the Library of the Congress data base. Ngram Viewer for example was not used (nor existed I think, as the data bank is using books, not newspapers if I'm correct).


I discovered that the term flying saucers then was already in use in... sport pages. 

And in particular concerning skeet shooting: There were writers searching or "seeking" to a term in order to "replace" or to become a synonym for the clay DISKS/Pigeons in use in this sport or hobby.

I never captured the newspaper in question (I must subscribe money for this at the time), but it seems we found here the same idea.

In the Oxford dictionaries, we find too:
Flying saucer had previously been used to mean a clay pigeon, a disk thrown into the air by a trap as a target for shooting. Whilst research thing article, I discovered an example from 1889, and it was used in the years immediately before 1947 in American newspaper stories about anti-aircraft sharpshooters, so this may have been in the headline writer’s mind.

The term flying saucer via Ngram (books data base, no newspaper if I'm correct): Only about a factor 2 1946 to 1947...

Another investigator told me today that a similar hypothesis have been proposed by Chris Aubeck.

Maybe we can find other instances of the term "flying Saucer" in 40's sport newspaper or others "media" regarding skeet shooting or anti-aircraft sharpshooters?

Maurizia Verga investigator did a quick search about the frequency of the term in newspaper (in trapshooting columns). His results are the following and the instances look pretty rare, despite existing (I suppose that's if there exist three results, it was because he used three sort of newspaper data banks):

"Flying saucers" comes up about 80 times in a large sample of US newspapers between 1900 and 1946 mostly in relation to trap-shooting (the first one in 1900).
"Flying discs" comes up about 190 times in a large sample of US newspapers between 1900 and 1946 in relation to trap-shooting (the first one in 1902).
"Flying disks" comes up 52 times in a large sample of US newspapers between 1900 and 1946 in relation to trap-shooting (the first one in 1901).

It was shared to me other press clippings using the term in the same sport, and among them one of 1944, as 1946 and July 1947 (not reproduced here).




Another problem for the "linguistic" hypothesis in my humble opinion is that to the best of my knowledge and during the 1947 UFO wave, I have never seen articles alluding or connecting the "trapshooting flying saucers" to the "objects" (for example in humorist articles or drawings). But maybe it existed and will update if it was the case.

EDIT: There were some of them in July 1947 - actually drafting and archiving -, but looks like in my humble opinion an a posteriori and "logic" connexion due to the "similar" shapes between clay pigeons and flying saucers, in order to (easy) jokes and not an evidence for the "linguistic" hypothesis or lead.

As examples (Courtesy Chris Aubeck, one the co-authors of Return to Magonia with Martin Shough. Anomalist Books. iBooks. pp.127-128:

On our desk is a ‘Genuine Flying Saucer’ in the shape of a clay pigeon sent by Bill Francey (inside one editorial dated July 16, 1947).

There is a cartoon (I hope to obtain) of a trapshooter guy firing at a small “flying saucer” appearing alongside an article in the Mexico Evening Ledger of July 8 1947.

Isaac Hunter wrote in the Montreal Gazette on July 18, that after watching sportsmen shoot clay discs into the air, He instantly realized that it was one of the flying saucers we have been hearing so much about...the mystery of the flying saucers was a mystery no more.

In Corpus Christi Times of July 10, 1947: a "joke" that skeet shooters at the local gun club should be posted to bring down the next ‘flying saucers’ that show up overhead.


This one in Life (July 1947), but the connexion is far to be "limpid"!


Courtesy Curt Collins..







You can take a look at this link (courtesy Chris Aubeck):
 http://caubeck.tripod.com/the_sport_of_flying_saucers/


Courtesy Chris Aubeck...

Courtesy Chris Aubeck...

Courtesy Chris Aubeck...

And then, some (very rare) journalists/newspaper writers, reading saucer-like in the AP news dispatched by Bequette to the Associated Press jumped to this term (instead of missile, saucer alone, etc.) the very first day(s), having in mind flying saucer(s) as used in skeet shooting or military sharpshooters lexicons?

Or it is the complete hazard of a "creativity process" and the logic product of the inter-individual variability from the words and contents of the AP news dispatched for this 26 June, some writers and journalists having a preference or "insight" for flying saucer(s)? (Again, I'm inclined to this hypothesis).

And these two possibilities before the term, by "snow ball effect" established itself (because sounding well/good in English? Catchy/Punchy? Unusual, new for the public and creative? and many variables in a feedback loop).




Gilles Fernandez, March 2017.

dimanche 29 janvier 2017

Seven Points to doubt that UFO and IFO are of different Natures: Then a simple Difference of Degree?


*
**
****

This short article is an abstract of four years of this blog and 16 years of personal immersion in the UFO microcosm.

*
**
****


A UFO case is a case unsolved and remaining unexplained, trending some people to think that it involves exotic entities, stimuli or phenomena. 
A IFO case is a UFO case which was solved after investigation and then of course involving conventional and prosaic stimuli or phenomena.


The hypothesis defended by UFO-Skeptics is that the phenomenon can be reduced to multiple and composite prosaic stimuli and cognitive mechanisms. Then, the terms Composite and Reductionist Theory (CRT) of the UFO Phenomenon or the SocioPsychological & Cultural Hypothesis of the UFO Phenomenon (SPCH) were coined, in particular by French and English ufologists.
It finds its roots in several findings, and a non-exhaustive list might be the following.

1) The existence of extraordinary reports does not suggest the existence of extraordinary objects. It is perfectly possible to get extraordinary reports and drawings from ordinary objects (R. Sheaffer, 2012).

2) The a priori high strangeness contained in UFO narratives or drawings made by witnesses does not imply Fortean stimuli and mechanisms are at play in the sightings made and is not sufficient and reliable evidence to support or to prove extraordinary theses, like Extra-Terrestrial beings visiting us, as inter-dimensional visitors, or as time-travelers, as to be imputed to an omniscient intelligence possessing a manipulative or insidious behavior, etc.

The first image depicts an example of slides used in an Edgar Wunder's experiment. He projected such slides to individuals , a clear winter night sky where a stimulus appears time to time (here an unstructured cloud of lights) and after a delay, asked the individuals to draw what they saw. The second image is a drawing obtained in Edgar Wunder's Experiment. The individual “saucerized” the initial stimulus.

Source: (Tim Printy webzine 6-2).

3) The unexplained cases have no unique peculiarities. Exactly the same patterns and the same characteristics appear in both explained (IFO corpus) or unexplained (UFO corpus) cases. We can state that the two corpora are more or less "twins".
There exists in the explained (IFO) corpus conventional and mundane stimuli which have generated all the aspects, parameters and contents contained and alleged in the unexplained corpus (UFO): from the simple ones, including shape, color, speed, size, duration, a priori reliable witnesses, etc.; all socio-economical classes (including pilots) are involved, multiple or single witnesses cases, etc. ; to the more complex ones, including an alleged intelligent behavior, pursuit, interferences and physiological or physical effects to the witnesses, to the ground or to instruments (radar) as domestic devices (radio, TV, car, etc.), a priori high level of strangeness in the narrative, drawing, photography or video. 
In a previous article, or during my previous public lectures, I proposed several explained cases (narratives, photos or videos) as a recreation in order people realize that if they are not able to solve and to find the mundane explanation of the proposed cases, it doesn't mean extraordinary entities are at play when you can't solve a case (see the 8th section here after about "the syllogism of ufology").

IFO and UFO are twins?

4) There exists a continuity between the trivial (asserted by IFO cases) and the extraordinary (UFO or residual cases proposed by ufologists): for both, as summarized before, the characteristics and parameters alleged seem in reality in a perfect continuity, but their peripheral location is not perceived as such because ufologists remove the more central part of the curve, where the less strange phenomena are identified by the witnesses themselves or by the field investigators. Ufologists, Monnnerie says, arbitrarily call the minor misinterpretations ‘false UFOs’ and the major ones ‘true UFOs’, and do not realize that there is a perfect continuity between the two series. That's a reason UFO-Skeptics propose that the difference between UFO and IFO may be of degree not of nature.

Ufologists: Gauss curve tail's hunters?






5) There are similar corpora where it exists unexplained or unsolved cases. Such corpora are for example murders, disappearances, kidnappings, rapes, domestic incidents or accidents (planes, cars, home devices), forest or home fires, etc. The presence of residual cases in such corpora have not as consequence that if a percent of residual cases exists, it is because entities, stimuli and mechanisms between unexplained and explained cases are different in nature and at play in the unexplained and residual corpora and why forensic or classical sciences and methods can't solve it. James Oberg already wrote in the 80's:
Since some airplanes and automobiles crash without explanation, are extraterrestrial traffic saboteurs at work? Since a good fraction of murders remain forever unsolved, are psychotic time-travelling killer-robots at work? Surely not, of course -- it's absurd even to suggest such ideas. But how far afield is the analogy to the evidential value of "unsolved" UFO cases?
The reasons that some and numerous cases remain unexplained and unsolved are or may be in reality numerous and logical, but mundane: the lack of the good information, of the good element, of the good expert, of luck, etc. In the case of ufology, many ufologists recognize that if one or another case has been solved, it is due to luck or accident. The presence of residual cases is intrinsic and statistically logical and expected: it does not mean that if cases are unsolved, it is because extraordinary entities must be involved, or different causes are at play between unexplained and explained corpora. It is another reason why UFO-Skeptics propose that the ufological corpus may be in fact in this intrinsic characteristic and component already shown and evidence by/in such other corpora. Hudson Hoagland in Science (1969) already said about ufology and residual cases:
There will always be cases which remain unexplained because of lack of data, lack of repeatability, false reporting, wishful thinking, deluded observers, rumors, lies, and fraud. A residue of unexplained cases is not a justification for continuing an investigation after overwhelming evidence has disposed of hypotheses of supernormality, such as beings from outer space... Unexplained cases are simply unexplained. They can never constitute evidence for any hypothesis.




6) In our previous blog articles, we have shown that some cases presented by ufology as the best ones, so solid a priori (and maybe understandably) that only the ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis (or extraordinary ones) must be invoked and the most reasonable explanation to retain, have been solved or explained. Again, the switch of such solid cases from the unexplained corpus (UFO) to the explained one (IFO) must engage investigators to be very cautious when they use the unexplained status of cases to defend or to depend upon extraordinary theses, entities, mechanisms. 

7) Ufology seems only to lead and have as foundation of her (weak?) edifice the following "argument":  If some UFO reports cannot be solved, then their stimulus must be extraordinary and Fortean in nature. Or, as James Oberg (Ibid.) expressed decades before:
The syllogism, to repeat, goes like this: Since some UFO reports cannot be solved by amateur investigators working in their spare time, then there must exist extraordinary stimuli behind some UFO reports. As a technique of analysis, invert the syllogism to create a new one of equivalent Boolean value. It now reads: if all UFO reports were caused only by ordinary stimuli, then amateur investigators working in their spare time would be able to solve every one of them. Worded this way, the syllogism is arguably untrue (there are numerous counterexamples of cases which happened to be solved only by "accident"); its untruth implies untruth for the first equivalent assertion, championed by UFO proponents.

In essence, why cant the residual cases be of the same nature as the resolved cases, since, in reality and to date at least, there are none discriminating criteria (color, size, behavior, duration, speed, form, etc.) that make it possible to objectively discern the two corpora, if the status only, explained versus unexplained? 

===> UFO and IFO cases, Then a simple difference of degree?


*
**
****

Gilles Fernandez, January 2017.

vendredi 30 décembre 2016

L'OVNI Géant au-dessus de Montréal (Canada) du 7 novembre 1990...




*
**
****
L'ovni de la place Bonaventure est un parfait exemple des dégâts causés par l'argument d'autorité en ufologie... Ce prétendu ovni n'aurait pas existé sans l'incursion d'un « spécialiste de la NASA » dans des domaines qu'il ne maîtrisait pas du tout !
En 1990, cet ovni n'a pas fait beaucoup de bruit, juste un article illustré par une photographie dans un journal de Montréal et quelques courtes informations sur les radios et télévisions locales... Et personne n'a crié au scandale lorsque le lendemain le même journal a rendu compte de l'opinion d'un spécialiste (un vrai, pour le coup !) pour qui les observations résultaient d'un phénomène de réflexion des nuages ou des cristaux de glace... En clair, deux jours après l'observation, on avait l'explication correcte, même si elle n'était pas détaillée !
Mais c'est lorsque le fameux rapport est paru, avec notre prétendu spécialiste affirmant avoir prouvé la présence d'un objet matériel de plus de 500 mètres de diamètre au-dessus de la ville, que le cas est devenu pour à peu près tous les ufologues une des plus fantastiques observations collectives de l'histoire des ovnis ! Et il a fallu presque vingt ans pour que cette légende soit sérieusement remise en cause...

Robert Alessandri vient de mettre en ligne une étude détaillée de ce cas "mythique", apportant de nouveaux éléments, et bien plus encore, que je recommande, et intitulée L'ovni géant qui a stationné pendant trois heures au-dessus de Montréal !


C'est à lire sur son site, à l'adresse suivante :
http://perso.numericable.fr/r.alessandri/ufologie/montreal.html




dimanche 25 décembre 2016

Mogul/Roswell: Are the missing Flight Numbers in the New York University Summary Table canceled Flights?


English first, en Français ensuite (descendre le texte).






*
**
****



The famous table summary is reproduced below. 



The famous Flight #4 is missing. It is one the main argument used by crashologists to state the flight was canceled, never existed. For example, David Rudiak stated:
The main problem, as Moore himself readily admits in his book, is that there is no surviving flight data on Flight #4 -- no altitude data, no ground trajectory, no launch time, etc. Again, it is very questionable that there ever was a Flight #4, since it should definitely have been recorded in Mogul summary tables and reports had it existed, as all the other Moguls that flew actually were
See previous article (in French) or and in English, SUNlite 4-4 and SUNlite 5-5.

But the Technical Report Number 1, attached in the USAF "big" Report, gives light about the missing flights in the table summary.




The table is adopting a revised numbering system: Only the flights in which an attempt was made to control the altitude are included in the summary. The flights excluded are flights made to test special gear and launchings which were not successful.

The failures were for example, telemetry failures (looks like telemetry failed on ground for Flight #2, telemetry failure in the sky, and lost of the radar-tracking for Flight #4), failure due to poor rigging and the balloons broke free. 

In other words, it is not because a flight is not present in the table summary that it was canceled or never existed, but because:
  • Or no attempt or no materials to control/record the altitude were made.
  • Or because special gear or technic tested.
  • Or due to different failures on ground or during the flight.
On a side note, it is often claimed flight #5 was the first successful Mogul flight. No, it "failed" to level off when the lifting balloons broke loose. It is "only" the first successful flight carrying a heavy load.




*
**
****
Français :


Mogul/Roswell : est-ce que les Numéros de Vols manquants dans le Tableau récapitulatif de l'Université de New York sont des Vols annulés ?

Pas vraiment... Mais Kevin Randle a récemment lancé une nouvelle offensive contre l'hypothèse Mogul pour expliquer les débris.

Le fameux tableau récapitulatif est reproduit ci-dessous : 



Le célèbre Vol #4 est manquant dans le tableau. C'est un des arguments majeurs utilisé par les "crashologistes" pour affirmer que le vol a été annulé, qu'il n'a jamais existé. Lire par exemple cet article (en Français) ou bien, surtout, et en Anglais, SUNlite 4-4 and SUNlite 5-5.

Mais le Technical Report Number 1, attaché dans le gros rapport de l'USAF, apporte des lumières sur le vols manquants du tableau récapitulatif.



Le tableau adopte un système de numérotation révisé : seuls, les vols pour lesquels une tentative d'en contrôler l'altitude ou d'enregistrer des données d'altitude sont inclus dans le tableau. Les vols exclus sont les vols réalisés pour tester de nouveaux équipements ou techniques et les lancements qui n'ont pas été couronnés de succès.

Les échecs ont été dus, par exemple, à des défaillances de la télémétrie (il semble que la télémétrie a raté au sol pour le vol #2, que le suivi au radar a été perdu pour le vol #4), ou encore des défaillances imputables au gréement des ballons qui donc s'échappaient en vol.

En d'autres termes, ce n'est pas parce qu'un vol n'est pas présent dans le tableau qu'il a été annulé ou qu'il n'a jamais existé, mais parce que :
  • Ou bien il n'y a pas eu de tentative ou d'équipement pour contrôler ou enregistrer les données d'altitude.
  • Ou encore que des équipements ou techniques spéciales furent testés.
  • Ou à cause de défaillances au sol ou bien en vol.

En parenthèse, il est souvent affirmé ici ou là que le vol #5 a été le premier vol Mogul pleinement réussi. En réalité, "non", il n'a pas réussi à atteindre et rester à altitude constante. C'est "simplement" le premier essai couronné de succès à emporter une charge lourde.

*
**
****


Gilles Fernandez, December 2016.

mardi 22 novembre 2016

La Saga des Diapositives de Roswell : La vidéo "d'Hygiène Mentale"...






*
**
****

Les enquêtes sur les phénomènes paranormaux sont toujours menées de façon complètement bancales..
Le cas des "Diapositives de Roswell" est caractéristique de cette mauvaise méthode. il a été présenté comme une preuve irréfutable de la présence extraterrestre sur Terre.
Cette histoire est un support pédagogique idéal pour expliquer ce qu'il ne faut pas faire lors d'une enquête sur un phénomène paranormal.
C'est un prétexte pour moi pour expliquer la méthode que je pense être la meilleure pour chercher la vérité sur un truc extraordinaire : celle de la Pensée Critique.


*
**
**** 

J'ai également pensé que cette histoire que je suivais devenait sous mes yeux un véritable cas d'école pour la pensée critique et l'auto-défense intellectuelle.
Christophe Michel, de la chaîne YouTube Hygiène Mentale a justement réalisé une vidéo dans laquelle il se sert du prétexte de ces diapositives pour un support pédagogique afin d'expliquer ce qu'il ne faut pas faire lors d'une enquête sur un phénomène "extraordinaire"...

Voici cette vidéo :






Gilles Fernandez, November 2016.