UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 8

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:18:50 EST
Archived: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:13:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 00:58:42 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:27:08 EST
>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials


>However, if David Rudiak was correct in what he stated about
>Venus (perhaps you could help me here if he's not), I believe
>researchers may have just cause to think the "Venus"
>explanation though a little more carefully.


>From: DRudiak <DRudiak.nul>[David Rudiak]
>Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 01:55:52 EDT
>Fwd Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 03:08:22 -0400
>Subject: Re: Pres. Carter


>c) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the distance.


It would it the witness _interpreted_ Venus's fading to motion

>At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have remained
>well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have

Robert Sheaffer's detailed investigative report (The UFO Verdict
- Examining the Evidence, Prometheus Books, 1981, pp. 4-12),
states, "When I obtained the weather records from the nearby
Albany airfield, they revealed that the weather was cold and
clear, although a few scattered clouds were present that

Sheaffer reports that Carter's sighting report filed with Heyden
Hewes' Internation UFO Bureau described the object as, "bluish
at first - then reddish," it "seemed to move toward us from a
distance, stop, move partially away, return then depart."

This could describe the planet gradually fading and brightening
behind clouds.


>Rudiak continued:
>Lesser discrepancies are:

>a) Venus was in the southwestern, not western sky
>(between 237 and 240 degrees azimuth, not 270).

Close enough for a visual report without the aid of a compass.

>b) If the time was correct, the elevation was between 21
>and 24 degrees, not 30 degrees.

Three finger widths. Have you actually investigated many UFO

>c) According to my planetarium programs, Venus wasn't
>even at its brightest on this date, much less an
>"unusually bright light." ....snip....

[End of quote]

This is ridiculous "armchair" astronomy, but typical for David.
Venus is _always_ the brightest object in the heavens after the
Sun, Moon and very bright meteor fireballs.

According to the JPL Ephemeris Generator:


On January 6, 1969 Venus was at magnitude -4.3 magnitude. The
next brightest object, on the other side of the sky, was Jupiter
at -2.12 magnitude. Venus was nearly 7and a half times brighter
than Jupiter, the next brightest astronomical object in the sky.


>Then I found myself asking "I wonder who Bob Scheaffer
>interviewed? No supporting evidence was given to make it
>possible for others to check what he says in this regard.

Try getting his book, or its more recent edition, UFO Sightings
(Prometheus). He names a half dozen others he interviewed.

>So I performed a web search to see what else I might find
>regarding this case.

>Grant Cameron, who has posted a monumental analysis on Carter
>and an investigation of his UFO Report on his web site


>had the following comments to make:

>[Begin quote]

>Carter had, in fact, described the UFO sighting many times in
>the years since it occurred. In every instance, including the
>latest known telling of the story at Emory University in 1997,
>Carter has never backed off on the spectacular nature of the
>event. He has also never conceded that was he saw was some
>misidentification of a natural phenomena.

So what? How may UFO sighting witnesses publicly recant an
observation, particularly after citing it at speaking
engagements for many years? Can you name any?

>Carter estimated that the object was three hundred to one
>thousand yards away.

It is impossible to estimate the distance of an unkown object
without clues of some sort.

>Carter described the object as being the "size of the
>moon" or"slightly smaller than the apparent size of the
>moon." Venus never appears this way.

And certainly when the Moon wasn't visible at the same time to
make a comparison. By the way, the Moon is only the apparent
size of your little fingernail at arm's length. What does it
mean to be "slightly smaller" that this in one's mind's eye?

>Venus at the time was at between 15 and 21 degrees
>over the horizon at 7:15 p.m.

Please explain in detail how this is possible. If it were true
than Venus could be 14 times larger than the Moon.

>Carter, a trained observer stated the object was 30 degrees
>above the horizon

Pretty close for a visual observation, but the JPL Ephemeris
gives 25.3 degrees up (from a perfect sea horizon, not taking
into account horizon obstructions near Carter's viewing place).

>or almost double the height of Venus at the time.

That is, if Venus was actually within your 7 degree "armchair"
guess, which it wasn't.

This bring's a key issue into bright focus (pardon the pun). Why
didn't Jimmy Carter ever report seeing Venus little more than a
hand's width away?

>Sheaffer described Venus as "being at it's brightest" on
>the date in question. It wasn't at its brightest.

This is interesting, since you apparently never bothered to find
Sheaffer's work and read it for yourself to find out if he had
interviewed anybody else.

In fact, what Sheaffer said in his 1981 book (p. 10) is,
"nearing its maximum brilliance", and, "at about 25 degrees

Jerry, when you use Grant Cameron as a source of technical
information about astronomy you will find yourself off in blue
space, as he is.


>During these 115 minutes the planet Venus would have
>increased in brightness (not disappeared) as it approached
>the horizon.

Cameron has got it completely backwards. Atmospheric extinction
_decreases_ the brightness of astronomical objects as they
approach the horizon, not the other way around. Where in the
world did he dream this up?

>Venus does not disappear, and would have been eliminated as
>a suspect by a grade six astronomy class investigation.

>[End quote]

I will modestly refrain, here, from a belly laugh.

>Grant Cameron also mentions:

>"Carter who had spent watches, while in the Navy doing watches
>in cruisers and destroyers, as a navigation officer, taking star
>shots with a sextant, stated the object was in the western sky."

Yeah, and he never noticed Venus, either. Doesn't this strike
you as odd? Another witness, though, is cited by Sheaffer as
remembering a little blue light, which he thought might have
been a weather balloon, but no UFO. I wonder what that could
have been and why Cameron never mentioned it?

>We do know, however, that proposing an estimated explanation is
>not the same thing as having a solid explanation. The IFO
>"proposal" is exactly that, an estimated explanation.
Therefore, >it cannot be guaranteed as the correct solution for
this >specific case. Readers are free to form their own

And I hope that they do, after reading Sheaffer in his own
words, and trying to come up with their own hypothesis as to why
he didn't see Venus when others present reported a blue light or
a star, but no UFO.

Please see: http://www.debunker.com/texts/carter_ufo.html

Clear skies,

Bob Young

[ 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