From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:14:54 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:04:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis - Maccabee


 >From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
 >Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:22:26 -0000

 >>Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:16:55 -0500
 >>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>

 >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joem_cgonagle@yahoo.com>
 >>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Subject: Re: Scientists And The ET Hypothesis
 >>>Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:15:28 -0000

<snip>

 >>New Zealand, December 31, 1978. Multiple witness including 2 TV
 >>reporters, pilot and copilot, TV cameraman, audio tape made by
 >>one reporter on the scene (in the aircraft), audio tape made at
 >>the Wellington Air traffic Control center, 16 mm professional
 >>color movie of many of the sighted lights/obects, radar
 >>detection by ground radar and by airplane radar; extensive
 >>interview information available; and they are all still alive
 >>(however the pilot suffered a stroke several years after the
 >>event; not sure how much he remembers); reported in two books,
 >>one by the pilot and one by the main reporter and in numerous
 >>research papers.

 >>See:

 >>http//brumac.8k.com


 >Hello, Bruce/list,

 >I was rather hoping that you would suggest this case, though I
 >was unaware that the bulk of the data was available and intact,
 >otherwise I might have suggested it myself!>

 >As you know, I came across a reference to the case in the
 >Jodrell Bank Archive. Many of the staff viewed the film, and
 >hey were unable to arrive at a positive conclusion, though they
 >did suggest it may be illegal fishing boats.

I think this applied to only one portion of the sighting that is
discussed at the above web site (the "squid boat" sighting).

 >I am quite prepared
 >to release the raw transcript that I made from the JBA to any
 >panel that is involved in reviewing the case, but I would need
 >to check with Jodrell Bank before releasing them for general
 >publication (there were some personal notes written by Sir
 >Bernard Lovell and members of his staff, which although not
 >defamatory, they may want to withhold from public scrutiny in
 >case they are misinterpreted etc).

Yes, I communicated with JBA back in those days. If you have
read my paper on the flashing light filmed by cameraman
Crockett, you may recall that I referred to T. W. Rackham at
Jodrell Bank who suggested that what was shown on the film was
actually a distant light on the earth's surface, i.e., not
astronomical, distorted by the atmosphere.

 >The next step would be to agree on a panel to take part in the
 >review. I suggest that the criteria for participation will need
 >to be based on things like proximity to the data (I assume that
 >some of the witnesses are in New Zealand)? Other criteria to
 >decide will be the acceptability of the panel by both pro-ETH
 >and anti/uncommited ETH readers. Perhaps, Bruce, you would like
 >to make some suggestions based on your knowledge of the case,
 >the data locations, and the members of this auspicious list?

 >I would also suggest that a seperate List be set up for the
 >participants, with as much of the material as practically and
 >ethically possible being transparent to non-panel members,
 >together with regular updates to this List.

 >Comments/suggestions, anyone?

Some review panel members would have to be prepared to spend a
number of hours (don't know exactly how long) reviewing original
information (hours worth of interviews, audio tapes, 16 mm color
movie film - requires access to a 16 mm movie camera, ideally a
"film analyzer" that allows for frame by frame analysis) simply
to become familiar with the history of the sightings and to
become familiar with the nature of the available data and to
provide an independent check on what I have already done.

I personally spent probably hundreds of hours over a period of
roughly 5 years studying all the aspects.

At least some review panel members should have radar experience,
not just practical experience (operating radars) but theoretical
experience (theory of radar, atmospheric propagation, etc.). At
least some freview panel members should have optical experience
(effects of atmosphere on distant lights, response of color
reversal film to bright lights at night, operation of movie
cameras, how to calculate light source brightness from image
exposure, theoretical photography, etc.). At least some panel
members should be capable of making judgements on the liklihood
that the witnesses are accurate and truthful.

By fortuitous coincidence, I had studied radar and studied
photography and had already interviewed many UFO witnesses. I
didn't do a perfect investigation, but I doubt that anyone
working only part time (i.e., anyone not a full time
investigator) could have done better.

Somebody really want to do this? I would welcome it and could
cut "years" off the study process (because I have already
collated and made understandable the raw data; I have written a
history that is a starting point; I know where the hard spots
and the soift spots are; and I have had a running battle with
Klass over numerous aspects of these sightings, a disturbing ,
yet priceless experience, because it forced me to really think
about what formed the hard core data ). Some of the now
available (that wasn't available when I began the investigation
in 1979) information is at the above web site.