UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 14

Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:48:39 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:21:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Rudiak

 >From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@sympatico.ca>
 >Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:21:04 -0400
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question - Salvaille

 >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@aol.com>
 >>Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:58:11 EDT
 >>Subject: Re: Arnold's Fleet - A Question
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Amen. To this I would like to add that it isn't all that
 >>difficult to acquire and follow objects through low-power
 >>telescopes with a little experience. The purpose of low-power
 >>"finder telescopes" attached to larger, high-power telescopes is
 >>exactly this. If anything, it is more difficult than prospector
 >>Johnson's job because one has to crane one's neck into awkward
 >>positions and then look through scope that has everything

 >>The trick to using these finder scopes is to simultaneously look
 >>through the scope with one eye and use the unaided eye to
 >>"point" to the object or region one wants to look at.

 >>These small scopes usually have powers down around 6x. I have
 >>even followed jets through the larger scope at powers of 50x
 >>(everything still inverted and with everything on an equatorial
 >>mount). It's not easy, but it can be done. (Think also how
 >>military observers follow jets through binoculars.)

 >>A lot depends on angular speed, not absolute speed. The Johnson
 >>report is unfortunately devoid of such details. If he had
 >>initially seen fast moving objects of in the distance headed
 >>directly for his position, they would have loomed but had little
 >>angular velocity at first until they got relatively close and
 >>zoomed overhead.

 >Where is it written that Johnson used an astronomical

 >If he did use one, Bob is right: you can't follow an object
 >with a magnification factor which I would estimate to be a
 >minimum of 40x.

Sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say that
he was using an astronomical telescope. I pointed out that with
the low-power finder scope (mine was 6x), it was quite easy to
acquire objects, even moving ones like jet planes and
satellites. Then I could switch to the regular scope and follow
the moving objects at an even higher power (50x).

 >If he did use a hypothetical finder on his telescope, I believe:

 >1. He would have said so, because a savvy astronomical user
 >would necessarily make the distinction;

 >2. Forget it: it's no piece of cake to follow anything with a
 >finder scope mounted on an astronomical instrument, even with
 >experience, because your experience is only pertinent to
 >pointing at motionless objects in the sky.

Again, I didn't mean literally that he used an astronomical
telescope fitted with a finder scope. It was just an example
from my own experience.

In fact, I was assuming, like you do below, that Johnson used a
low power telescope similar to the low power finder scope. If
you are experienced, it is quite easy to acquire moving objects
and follow them (assuming the angular speed isn't too
outrageous, like for a shooting star).

 >My take on this: as a prospector, Johnson used a _monocular_
 >field telescope; you know, the kind of thing used by Long John

 >The object can be defined as: "A spotting telescope, which
 >resembles half a binocular. Monoculars are often hand-held, and
 >are used in much the same way, and for the same purposes, as

Right, I agree. Or it could have been a mounted, low-power
theodolite scope used in surveying.

Another point I was trying to make is that such a scope wouldn't
be handicapped with inverted images on the astronomical finder
scope or main scope and be attached to a clunky,
hard-to-maneuver mount. Despite these obstacles, I followed
many a satellite and jet plane through my main scope after
locating them with the finder scope.

Johnson should have had an easier time of it. The primary
question in my mind is not whether he could possibly acquire a
moving object and follow it with such a scope. He could if the
angular speed wasn't too great. Bob Young, on the other hand,
proclaimed flatly that is was "impossible" under all

The main question in my mind would be the angular speeds. If
they were too great then Bob Young has a point. Unfortunately,
Johnson's report lacks the necessary detail to determine what
the angular speeds might have been.

David Rudiak

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com