UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 19

Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &

From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17:07 EST
Archived: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 06:58:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize &


>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:52:51 -0500
>Subject: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

>>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>>To: To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:18:50 EST
>>Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter The Nobel Prize & Extraterrestrials

<snip>

>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 evening."

 Bob, at the URL you had us visit, Robert Sheaffer himself had
 stated the sky was basically clear that night. Here it is again
 at: (Please see: end of second paragraph)

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

Yes, you are right about the web site, on which he says,
"Weather records show that the sky was clear at the time of the
sighting." His 1981 book, however, cites the actual weather
report, "although a few scattered clouds were present that
evening."

<snip>

>Unfortunately, I can't rely on this as gospel because of another
>comment you make below concerning the size of the moon being
>only as big as "your little fingernail."

>Let's see what else we know here:

>1)  As to the "little fingernail" statement: For a typical full
>moon, your little fingernail must be at least as big across as a
>quarter. Perhaps you have a very large hand? (because I know I
>don't.) You also omit the fact that no matter what size the
>moon, it is _always_ a lot larger than any stars that might be
>present.

Tonight the Moon is nearly full. Go out and hold up your little
finger at arm's length, and also hold up a quarter. The quarter
will be four or five times the size of the full Moon. It will be
abot 7 feet from your face to be the size of the full Moon - 1/2
degree of arc.

>2)  At certain times when the moon appears low to the horizon,
>the moon appears much larger than typical. I am sure most of us
>have seen this effect. This may or may not bear on this case but
>it was never mentioned.

This is a myth. There is some distortion of the Moon's shape but
this "Moon effect" is only an illusion caused by our brain
"seeing" the sky as a flattened dish-shape, probably due to the
size of the clouds we see in it. We assume that the Moon, which
is the same size as usual - 1/2 degree - is huge because we
expect it to be "away over there at the horizon". Try measuring
the width of the Moon at the horizon right now and then when it
is high in the sky about midnight. To prove that the Moon is not
huge at the horizon, do what we have little kids do at the
planetarium. Face away from the Full Moon at the horizon, spread
your legs and bend over and look at the Moon between your legs.
Your brain will not be fooled when you do it this way.

>We also know that the proximity of the Moon or a star near the
>horizon does appear to make it look much bigger but as you
>mentioned it probably loses _some_ of its luminosity due to the
>extra atmosphere in the way. (and I believe, the refraction of
>the incoming light.) Losing _all_ of it? That's another story.

Astronomical objects rarely just "blink out" at the real horizon.
Maybe at building roofs, etc. or perhaps at the top of a mountain.
They fade out. "Zooming away" is not an unusual way in which
Venus fades out.

>3)  You also completely omit discussing the following from my
>first post: (Rudiak)

>"C) Venus doesn't disappear by seeming to move into the
>distance. At the reported time of the sighting, Venus would have
>remained well-elevated and visible in the sky. It would not have
>disappeared. It fact, it didn't set until about 9:20. You can't
>have it both ways, with Venus supposedly being brilliantly
>bright and otherwise highly visible (to supposedly account for
>the report), yet supposedly disappearing as well."

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

>I read the above and said to myself, "Hmmn, Rudiak has a good
>point there." Bob Young says it was very bright. So how could it
>completely disappear?"

The sequence of events would have been:

1) Carter sees Venus
2) Carter sees Venus fading behind clouds
3) Carter no longer sees Venus and goes inside
4) Venus is no longer visible, or it might have become visible
again when Carter was inside.
5) Venus reaches the local horizon and would not have been
able to be seen any more

>4)  And omitted discussing this: (Cameron) (Long Cameron quote:
>last paragraph of the at the URL below) [jc emphasis added
>below is mine.]

>"The witnesses declared that the object disappeared
>after 10 minutes or at 7:25 p.m. Venus, on the evening
>in question, was visible in the clear sky till 9:20 p.m. If
>it had been Venus, it would still have been visible for
>another 115 minutes after the witnesses claimed it had
>disappeared in a clear sky. ...snip... _Venus does not
>disappear_, and would have been eliminated as a
>suspect ....snip...."

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

Please refer, again, to my sequence of events, #2 through 5.

>I think most astronomers would agree, Venus doesn't "set" until
>it "sets" That's why astronomers have assigned it a "setting
>time." (i.e. it doesn't just disappear at whim.)

Only those astronomers who observe on the airless, cloudless
Moon would make such a statement.

>5)  And you also omitted this important statement (Cameron);
>found within that same post:

>"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."
>(Long Cameron quote: 4 paragraphs before the end of the )

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

Venus _always_ appears a "smaller" (dimmer?) than the apparent
"size" (brightness?) of the Moon.

>None of us need the moon present to remember the "relative" size. (i.e.
>moon: large, star-like planet: small.) You can simply see the
>other visible stars/planets and judge what you see from that.

Then "none of us" would have ever mistaken a planet or star for
a sizeable UFO? The last 55 years have many examples of such
IFOs.

>6)  Was Cameron also incorrect when he said?
>[Long Cameron quote: Paragraphs 4-7 at URL below]

>"Sheaffer argued UFO researchers challenging his
>conclusions were wrong because they relied on
>eyewitness testimony, and eyewitness testimony is
>unreliable. There are, wrote Sheaffer, "volumes of
>scientific analysis documenting unreliability of
>unsubstantiated human eyewitness testimony." Yet
>Sheaffer, in his own analysis of the case, had used
>eyewitness testimony for one hundred percent of the
>data that he collected to come to his Venus
>conclusion.

>http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/nov/m03-001.shtml

The point is that many witnesses saw nothing exciting and only
one was excited.

>7)  And was I really incorrect when I said ...?

>"BTW, we get a hint of the lengths Sheaffer is willing to go to
>debunk a case when we note his 'expose' of Rosalyn Carter.

You will note that Robert has little vignettes about other
politicians on his website.


Clear skies,

Bob Young

[ Next Message | Previous 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