White Sands UFO tracked by Theodolite pulling 20 G's.

reply to post by liquidself

That seems to be taken directly from the Project Blue Book Report on the incident. The report only covers the data that the observers actually had; bearing, elevation, and changes in both.

It seems the altitude estimate was based on an assumption of speed more than some "secret" method. It's not clear how that assumption was arrived at.

Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation above the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period.

s87785095.onlinehome.us...


An interesting siting but I have the feeling that McLaughlin may have made a few assumptions of his own in the TRUE magazine article. I have to wonder what the numbers would show if the object had been at 50,000 feet rather than 300,000.

Did the math using the numbers from the report (5º/sec): at 50,000 feet it would have been going at about 2,900mph and been 17 feet long, at 10,000 feet it would have been 600mph and been 3 feet long.

I'll change that "interesting" to intriguing.

[edit on 2/24/2010 by Phage]

[edit on 2/24/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Something isn't right.

An object 100 feet long at a distance of 56 miles has an angular size of .019 degrees. Since the object was not straight overhead its distance would have been greater than 56 miles (its estimated altitude) and its angular size less. The naked eye can discern things with an angular size of .016 degrees. If the object had been the estimated size and at the estimated distance it would have been barely visible as a speck in the sky (if at all), not:

plainly visible. It was easy to see that it was elliptical in shape and had a 'whitish-silver color.'

I agree that if the UFO had an altitude of 56 miles, its angular size has to be .019° or less. I'll take your word for it, the naked eye limit is around an arcminute.

The error is equating what can be seen with the naked eye, to this theodolite. You failed to take magnification into account. Ruppelt said the equipment had x25 power. That puts it comfortably into view.

Even a very modest apeture (binoculars) can resolve down into the arcsecond range, far smaller a value than we're dealing with. See Dawes Limit.

The Navy Commander admitted they're withholding some information, so I wouldn't rack your brain trying to check the trigonometry. I'm skeptical they got excited over a hawk or conventional airplane.

3. It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)

It's okay to leave this unexplained. I take the 20g climb maneuver at face value. It's not the first UFO to perform such a feat ! Just because unidentified aerial phenomena are observed doing the impossible (according to our knowledge of technology) doesn't mean it didn't happen.


[edit on 24-2-2010 by Schaden]

Thanks for the replies, the names of the other scientists/engineers who witnessed the object are found in the paragraph below and further testimony taken from the CIA file on this incident which goes into more detail about the sighting:



White Sands Technicians:

On April 24, 1949, a team of White Sands technicians was studying the upper-atmosphere winds in preparation for the launch the FFTV scheduled to be conducted a few days later. From an off-range site about three miles north of Arrey, New Mexico, General Mills engineer Charles B Moore and four Navy enlisted men - Chief Akers and three men named Davidson, Fitzsimmons and Moorman, were launching small neoprene pilot balloons - "pibals" - to measure winds aloft to help predict the flight path of the actual FFTV Skyhook system.

Link

C.B. Moore letter in CIA file
Arrey, New Mexico
April 24, 1949


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6912d67ea10.gif[/atsimg]

On 24 April 1949, at 3 miles north of Arrey, New Mexico, (107 degrees 19½' W 300 deg 52½' N) 4 Navy enlisted men from White Sands Proving Ground (Chief Akers, Davidson, Fitzsimmons and Moorman) and I saw a rapidly moving object while making a pibal wind run. We had released a 350 gram balloon at about 1020 MST and were following it with a standard ML-47 (David White) Theodolite. After the 1030 reading, Davidson took over the theodolite, and Akers and I looked up to find the balloon with naked eye. We thought we had the balloon when we saw a whitish spherical object right along the direction the theodolite 45 degree elevation and 210 degree azimuth) was pointing. The object was drifting east rapidly (5 degrees/sec. as estimated by stopwatch and width of fingers) but we had thought to encounter similar winds on the balloon. When the difference in angle between the theodolite and supposed balloon became apparent, I took over the theodolite and found the true balloon still there, whereupon I abandoned it and picked up the object after it came out of the sun. (The computed bearing of sun was 127 degrees azimuth and elevation 60 degrees) The object was moving too fast to crank the theodolite around, therefore one of the men pointed the theodolite and I looked.

The object was an ellipsoid about 2½:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle, and white in color, except for a light yellow of one side as though it were in shadow. I could not get a hard focus on the object due to the speed at which the angles changed. Therefore I saw no good detail at all.

The Azimuth angle continued to decrease as the object continued on a north heading, growing smaller in size. At around 20 degrees - 25 degrees Azimuth, the Azimuth held constant and the elevation angle began increasing from the 25 degree minimum to about 29 degrees. The object then apparently disappeared due to distance after a total time of observation of about 60 seconds.

The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.

We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

Information is desired if this was some new or experimental aircraft or for any explanation whatsoever.


NOTE:

No clouds in sky, no haze.

No noise, very quite in area (no cars, planes or other engines running)

No trail, no exhaust visible.

No odor.

Link

Theres also another important government document concerning the theodolite readings at Ufologie.net but I can't seem to access that site today -is anyone else having problems?

Cheers.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, theres a very interesting discussion here regarding the incident between Jan Aldrich (Project 1947) and Brad
Sparks - it seems this is quite a controversial case (to say the least) with lots of unanswered questions.
Cheers.

Wow!......This case is most impressive because of the observers. The fact that they were on a scientific mission at the time of the sighting lends credence to the situation (to me) the fact that they were Air Force officers and trained observers means allot (again to me). Thanks for your post. The incident was very well presented and all in all a very good job. I look forward to seeing more of your post's. Also... I like your signature. Take care and happy hunting!

reply to post by karl 12

That seems to pretty much cover my thoughts (avoiding the personal aspects, I didn't know anything about Moore). My speed calculations used the 5º/sec figure. Which seems to be out of whack according to Brad:

Moore's widely repeated angular velocity or (actually) azimuth change of the UFO of 5 degrees per second does not agree with the simple change-in-azimuth or direction figures Moore gave and his time figures (190 degs/50 secs or 185/50 DO THE MATH PEOPLE!!), which yield 3.7 to 3.8 degrees per second, nor do they agree with the data from his crew members which did in fact fit the data. Navy Chief Fire Controlman William Akers reported the angular velocity as about 1.5 degrees per second, and his and the other crew members' data yield figures in the 1-3 degs/sec range.

These errors by Moore greatly reduce the speed estimates by 25% to 80

reply to post by ablue07


I found sightings in movies with outdoor shots:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Phage


Yes, I've got quite a lot of respect for Brad sparks - of course his opinions are far from conclusive in this case but he's certainly not afraid of tackling some of the more truly puzzling UFO incidents.


Heres a copy of the scientist's report I mentioned - Professor Moore also makes some pretty revealing comments below about Donalds Menzel's attempts at debunking this case.




Document:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/302593c99aa2.gif[/atsimg]








Statement to Dr. Bruce Maccabee:

"Although I had met Donald Menzel during the late 1950's in connection with John Strong's studies of Venus, he never discussed our earlier report of a peculiar flying object over Arrey, New Mexico in 1949. What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at that time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mills' balloon operations. It was not the X-1, which was in its hangar at Muroc that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo AFB for we were in radio contact with Range Control and were informed that our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons, I'm cynical about Menzel and his approach to science."

General Mills Engineer - Professor Charles B. Moore

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12




You ever just want to move to where you have no neighbors? Me too.

Just incredible Karl a great find and for those who haven't heard it or seen it, here's NASA UFO FOOTAGE scraped off youtube (for what it's worth)

I don't see how anyone can NOT accept extra-terrestrial life and spaceships as fact without assuming NASA 's a bunch of Trekkies just fabricating footage and tapes for their own amusement. This is probably not the case. These ain't balloons
.

Actually 75% of people DO believe in ET.

This means the remaining 25% probably are ET



bottoms up



[edit on 27-2-2010 by rusethorcain]

Outstanding stuff Phage and Karl12. I could read you guys going through the evidence like this all day long, it's fascinating and intriguing. It's nice to see when an awesome analysis of the facts like this takes place inside a deserving topic such as this, something which is lacking quite a bit on this forum. Thank you both for the excellent effort.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Snipers also use theodolites to determine such things as the height/range of an object - they are not strictly a surveying tool and do have combat applications. And they can be "grabbed" (despite what Phage would have you believe).

Theodolite in use by spotter/sniper

In my experience, Phage is very rarely wrong and I think he's right in this case too, at least the White Sands Theodolite in this picture on the right looks like you can grab the wheeled crank that turns it, but you probably can't turn it by grabbing the theodolite itself.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59c8db8be7e9.png[/atsimg]

By the way I got that photo from Bruce Maccabee's report on white sands which is a fascinating read on this subject:

www.nicap.org...

It really sounds like a screwed up project where a lot of the time the theodolites weren't tracking the same object, but on some occasions they did, and that allowed some triangulation to the distance of the objects. There's a lot of mystery and intrigue, and possibly a coverup as Maccabee suggests, but it also seems like a lot of project mismanagement and poor execution. Still a great story though, one of the better stories I've read.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur, thanks for the reply -although the link you provided doesn't realy address the April 1949 incident, it does make some very interesting comments about discrepencies within Project Twinkle and other UFO sightings in the area:

The investigation began on March 24, 1950. By this time there had been many sightings in the southwest according to the sighting catalogue compiled by Lt. Col. Rees of the 17th District Office of Special Investigations at Kirtland, AFB, many of them around Holloman Air Force Base. His catalogue shows the following data for New Mexico in 1949: the area of Sandia Base (Albuquerque) - 17 sightings, mostly in the latter half of the year; Los Alamos area - 26 sightings spread throughout the year; Vaughn area - none; Holloman AFB/Alamogordo/White Sands area - 12; other areas in southwest New Mexico- 20; total - 75. For the same areas in the first three months of 1950 there were: Sandia - 6 (all in February); Los Alamos - 7; Vaughn - 1; Holloman AFB/Alamogordo/White Sands - 6; others - 6; total - 26

Link

It also contains some revealing information about Holloman Air Force Base, the 'green fireball' phenomenon and the USAF witholding UFO information from the public so thanks for posting that one.

Captain Daniel McGovern who wrote

“I was very closely associated with Projects ‘Twinkle’ and ‘Grudge’ at Alamogordo, N. Mexico where I was chief of the technical photographic facility at Holloman Air Force Base. I have seen several of these objects myself` and they are everything you say they are as to shape, size and speed.”

Link

As for other comments in this thread, I certainly appreciate the input and just wish the same level of examination could apply to some of the other 'truly puzzling' UFO cases posted on this forum as it seems there are many which go completely unaddressed.

Cheers.

reply to post by rusethorcain




You might want to notice the X axis at 0:07 not too mention the other smaller obvious objects coming into view from no apparent destination.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I came accross that photo of the White Sands theodolites; but Phage provided an interesting link that listed the actual theodolite in a report by Moore:

unclassified document

I believe it is the theodolte found here:

David white ML 47 Theodolite

As it can be seen this theodolite is much simpler and smaller than the ones in the photo you listed. So maybe "grabbed" is an ambiguous term, but it certainly could be used quickly. Just because an instrument is sensitive it doesn t necessarily follow that it is fragile. Theodolites have been used by surveyors all over the world in all kinds of terrain and field conditions. If they were so delicate then I doubt they would have seen continued use.

The part I found interesting (in the link to the theodolite article provided above) is that the author states that finder scopes weren't on the originals.

reply to post by liquidself

This is getting a little bit out of hand.

The "grabbed" description came from McLaughlin who wasn't present. In the report Moore says he "took over" the theodolite from Davidson the same way Davidson "took over" the theodolite after the first ten minutes of the balloon observation (before the fast moving object was seen).

My point with the comment was that it was amusing (to me anyway) more than having any significance and may be nothing more than a dramatic exaggeration by McLaughlin.



[edit on 3/3/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by liquidself

 

This is getting a little bit out of hand.

Was that a deliberate funny ?

Seriously though, I tend to agree about Mac Laughlin; the mysterious ballistics expertise in particular seems more and more to be made up every time I think about it. Still think that they could see it at its farthest reach through the theodolite, but as for getting data at that height probably not.

There are differing types of theodolites - specifically the one in the black and white photo with the guys eyes blanked out is a portable surveying theodolite that would need to be set up, levelled and calibrated to some form of baseline and most certainly is not the kind of thing you "grab" because any sudden movement may knock the whole thing off kilter and ruin your readings.

The missile range ones look to be permanently set level on fixed mountings, which makes sense as they would be tracking from a fixed point constantly and have a calibrateed base line to work off. In that case it may be feasible to "grab" the controls of one and pick up readings on an object fairly quickly.

If you've got angles working off two fixed points on a measured distance from your set up you could work the height of an object by taking references to all three points onto the approximate centre of it, but working out the size of it...thats different.....and boy would it have to happen quickly.

I can only summise White Sands had it on a height ranging radar - assuming the radar could track that high in the 50's? Bear in mind the U2 flights over the Soviet Union were undetected initially and they were at considerably less than 56 miles.

[edit on 3/3/10 by neformore]

Reviving this old thread to ask a question- does anyone know of any further contributions to the UFO field by Robert B McLaughlin? He had a huge role in popularizing the exrtaterrestrial hypothesis, but all I can find is that Maj. Keyhoe signed him up in a supporting role in NICAP. After that, no further articles by him or mention of any activities.

originally posted by: karl 12
reply to post by Phage

 

Yes, I've got quite a lot of respect for Brad sparks - of course his opinions are far from conclusive in this case but he's certainly not afraid of tackling some of the more truly puzzling UFO incidents.


Heres a copy of the scientist's report I mentioned - Professor Moore also makes some pretty revealing comments below about Donalds Menzel's attempts at debunking this case.




Document:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/302593c99aa2.gif[/atsimg]








Statement to Dr. Bruce Maccabee:

"Although I had met Donald Menzel during the late 1950's in connection with John Strong's studies of Venus, he never discussed our earlier report of a peculiar flying object over Arrey, New Mexico in 1949. What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at that time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mills' balloon operations. It was not the X-1, which was in its hangar at Muroc that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo AFB for we were in radio contact with Range Control and were informed that our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons, I'm cynical about Menzel and his approach to science."

General Mills Engineer - Professor Charles B. Moore

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Karl...I'm having trouble with this link that you posted --- which leads me to a blog.