Aliens attacked!

Oct 2013
6,102
Planet Nine, Oregon
A lot more at:
UFO sightings by Skyhook and Mogul balloon personnel

April 24, 1949
3 miles N of Arrey, N.M. [50 miles west of White Sands] , 10:30 a.m.
[Project Blue Book unknown]


--General Mills/Mogul balloon expert Charles B. Moore, while tracking a test balloon with a theodolite, made important UFO sighting with 4 Navy technicians, (Akers, Davidson, Fitzsimmons, Moorman). After tracking it across the sky, the whitish-silver, elliptical object, roughly 100 by 40 feet, disappeared in a sharp climb, calculated at 18,000 to 25,000 mph [5-7 miles/sec] , at an altitude estimated at 60 miles. At one point the UFO climbed about 25 miles in only 10 sec [or about 80 G's acceleration!!]. The object left no trail and was observed for about 1 minute. Moore still believes it was not a conventional object. In 1986, responding to a question posed to him about Dr. Donald Menzel's debunking of the sighting as a mirage of their own balloon, Moore wrote, "What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at the 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 Mill's Balloon operations. It was not the X-1 that was in its hangar at Muroc [Edwards AFB, California] that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo. ...We were in contact with Range Control and were informed our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons I am cynical about Dr. Menzel and his approach to science." According to Dr. Allen Hynek, Moore also told him he was "disgusted" with the Air Force for its lack of attention to the sighting.


Late August 1947
Alamogordo Army Air Field (later Holloman AFB), N.M., unspecified time


--Communications officer Lt. H. C. Markley of the Air Materiel Command's Project Mogul, was watching 2 balloons carrying a radar reflector to the SE in 10x binoculars when he saw a high speed, round, white object in horizontal flight traveling at "an unprecedented rate of speed" S to N several thousand feet over the tops of the Sacramento Mts. He lost sight of it after a few seconds. Markley added that there had been other times when manning an optical tracker that he had seen round or flat-round objects that were "unexplainable."

(Sighting report; Brad Sparks unknowns list )[Sparks wryly notes that the case was bogusly explained by the Air Force as "false radar targets" picked up by radar tracking, when this was a visual sighting and no radar tracking was involved. However, the same sighting report notes that a Mr. Rosmovski of the Watson Labs confirmed that multiple stationary objects had indeed been picked up on radar at some other time, at an altitude of 200 miles!]
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,914
Connecticut
I've seen the clip before too

Certainly seems to show a crash of a flying craft, but imo the image is far too vague to make any positive claims .

The interpretation of indistinct objects in the sky as alien craft, I think comes from the deep human need for order. That also explains the cloud which looks like a bunny rabbit, or the piece of burnt toast with the image of the virgin-----and conspiracy theories.
The video may be unconvincing, but no knowledgeable observer will lightly dismiss the UFO phenomenon. It doesn’t just consist of “indistinct objects.” Some were seen and even photographed at close range and there have been landing traces and other physical effects.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,914
Connecticut
So Moore rejected a prosaic explanation for his sighting and therefore seemed to favor an ET explanation....The same person who falsified mogul flight data in an attempt to debunk Roswell....Seems odd but if you’ve read the book you’ll see that Alexander had the same approach. Have you had a chance to read more of it?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
'----but no knowledgeable observer will lightly dismiss the UFO phenomenon."

I think it was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary claims require extra ordinary proof"

Sorry mate ,that's 'no true scotsman fallacy' aka 'appeal to purity' Certainly not up to your usual standard.

The term UFO simply means "' Unidentified Flying Object"' . It's a hell of a stretch from"I see something in the sky, but don't know what it is" to ' I don't know what that is, so it must be aliens' I think that fits the 'argument from ignorance 'fallacy.


I have never dismissed the notion of alien visitation out of hand. However, I have dismissed all claims I've seen so far, including the crash footage. . I am perfectly willing to change my sceptical views. Al l want is a clear, unambiguous picture published in a major Newspaper. Artifacts would be nice, but a live visitor on TV would be best.

I think we need to agree to differ again.


Below an explanation of the "No trueScotsman' fallacy


No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[3]

Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[4]

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The essayist Spengler compared distinguishing between "mature" democracies, which never start wars, and "emerging democracies", which may start them, with the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Spengler alleges that political scientists have attempted to save the "US academic dogma" that democracies never start wars from counterexamples by declaring any democracy which does indeed start a war to be flawed, thus maintaining that no true democracy starts a war.[4]

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

Clip ; Physicist professor Brian Cox, on alien visitation.Cox is a credentialed expert.

 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
6,102
Planet Nine, Oregon
So Moore rejected a prosaic explanation for his sighting and therefore seemed to favor an ET explanation....The same person who falsified mogul flight data in an attempt to debunk Roswell....Seems odd but if you’ve read the book you’ll see that Alexander had the same approach. Have you had a chance to read more of it?
Too busy reading work-related stuff right now, might have time on weekend. Gotta go read right now!
 

Similar History Discussions