Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Lance, I went through Sparks lengthy explanation and I have some comments. He starts off by claiming how these witnesses were not "ordinary" and were "expert" witnesses. Yet, he admits that errors were made and he chose only to accept those observations that fit his scenario.
As I previously stated, he is comparison of seeing the object from 90 miles altitude is a false comparison the instant he pointed towards the ISS observations. The ISS is only visible because it reflects the sun's light against a dark background. Stating a dark object can be visible from 90 miles altitude is incorrect unless it reflected light. None of the witnesses stated this. In fact, the object receding away in the direction of the sun probably would have reflected sunlight at one point and flared up the way airplanes do against the setting sun. They did not observe this effect or report it.
Then we have Sparks talking about magnetic headings. Where does it state they flew west on a magnetic heading? Why would the pilot use a magnetic bearing? Has that been established anywhere but Sparks' mind?
He then accuses everyone of "cherry picking" from the reports but it is actually he who is doing this to reach his preconceived conclusion. He then goes off about how Lincoln LaPaz (doesn't he have any other meteor experts to work with, it is almost as if his entire knowledge is based on UFOs) was able to weed out the bad data. The problem with this argument is he is comparing apples to oranges. La Paz would have dozens of witness reports from various locations to work with so he could weed out the inaccurate ones. In this case, we have five observations. One from an indenpendent site and four from the same location, where the witnesses can't even get the location of the plane right and give varied directions of observations. He cherry picks the one observation that fits his predetermined conclusion.
Then Sparks states he has interviewed one of the aircrew and talked to the other via a second party. Using fifty year old memories is a dicey proposition. This could be doubly troublesome if Sparks' leads the witness. He also states he is going to write a book length article on it. Is it going to be as accurate as his RB-47 analysis, which I demonstrated to have made way too many false assumptions and inaccurate conclusions? This also sounds like his Trindade Research project from almost ten years ago, which failed to produce one iota of revelation or published data, He has great promises with very little in the way of results.
Finally, there is the claim made by Sparks and his misuse of the term FACT. FACTS are things that are established and can not be denied. It is a FACT that they reported these things and probably saw something unusual. However, what estimates and masurements they made can not be consider FACTUAL. They are estimates and are subject to error that can not be quantified.
One of his FACTS has to do with the resolution of the human eye and how he can make his case for what was presented. It is an inaccurate argument. Just because one can resolve things an arc minute across does not mean that one can resolve details. It would appear not much larger than a big dot to the naked eye and no details would be seen. The comparisons the crew made of the UNKNOWN (emphasis on this since it was unknown size and distance) to an aircraft at some distance (which is not stated) is just not an accurate way to measure angular size. The best anyone can conclude from all of this (as stated several times in this forum) is that what they saw was nothing more than a thin black line with the naked eye. All Johnson could add was that it was sort of disc-shaped from his observations with binoculars.
Kimball continues to disappoint me. Despite his efforts to portray himself as this great thinker, it appears he allows others to do his thinking for him on the UFO subject. Any knowledge on the case comes directly from what Sparks tells him to think and not any independent assessment by himself.
As I previously stated, he is comparison of seeing the object from 90 miles altitude is a false comparison the instant he pointed towards the ISS observations. The ISS is only visible because it reflects the sun's light against a dark background. Stating a dark object can be visible from 90 miles altitude is incorrect unless it reflected light. None of the witnesses stated this. In fact, the object receding away in the direction of the sun probably would have reflected sunlight at one point and flared up the way airplanes do against the setting sun. They did not observe this effect or report it.
Then we have Sparks talking about magnetic headings. Where does it state they flew west on a magnetic heading? Why would the pilot use a magnetic bearing? Has that been established anywhere but Sparks' mind?
He then accuses everyone of "cherry picking" from the reports but it is actually he who is doing this to reach his preconceived conclusion. He then goes off about how Lincoln LaPaz (doesn't he have any other meteor experts to work with, it is almost as if his entire knowledge is based on UFOs) was able to weed out the bad data. The problem with this argument is he is comparing apples to oranges. La Paz would have dozens of witness reports from various locations to work with so he could weed out the inaccurate ones. In this case, we have five observations. One from an indenpendent site and four from the same location, where the witnesses can't even get the location of the plane right and give varied directions of observations. He cherry picks the one observation that fits his predetermined conclusion.
Then Sparks states he has interviewed one of the aircrew and talked to the other via a second party. Using fifty year old memories is a dicey proposition. This could be doubly troublesome if Sparks' leads the witness. He also states he is going to write a book length article on it. Is it going to be as accurate as his RB-47 analysis, which I demonstrated to have made way too many false assumptions and inaccurate conclusions? This also sounds like his Trindade Research project from almost ten years ago, which failed to produce one iota of revelation or published data, He has great promises with very little in the way of results.
Finally, there is the claim made by Sparks and his misuse of the term FACT. FACTS are things that are established and can not be denied. It is a FACT that they reported these things and probably saw something unusual. However, what estimates and masurements they made can not be consider FACTUAL. They are estimates and are subject to error that can not be quantified.
One of his FACTS has to do with the resolution of the human eye and how he can make his case for what was presented. It is an inaccurate argument. Just because one can resolve things an arc minute across does not mean that one can resolve details. It would appear not much larger than a big dot to the naked eye and no details would be seen. The comparisons the crew made of the UNKNOWN (emphasis on this since it was unknown size and distance) to an aircraft at some distance (which is not stated) is just not an accurate way to measure angular size. The best anyone can conclude from all of this (as stated several times in this forum) is that what they saw was nothing more than a thin black line with the naked eye. All Johnson could add was that it was sort of disc-shaped from his observations with binoculars.
Kimball continues to disappoint me. Despite his efforts to portray himself as this great thinker, it appears he allows others to do his thinking for him on the UFO subject. Any knowledge on the case comes directly from what Sparks tells him to think and not any independent assessment by himself.
Last edited:
