NBC, do you believe?

[bsvalley]

NBC, had a segment today that wants to know if you believe.
They showed some Phoenix lights, The New York lights, And they had Phillip imbrogno on. They also had a guy named James Oberg,
The NBC "space analyst"on saying these lights were just a bunch of planes fyling in formation trying to act like a ufo. Date line is doing a story on it Sunday at 7pm- 6 central time. Maybe someone can go to msnbc and imbed the clip here. I'm not that computer savy. Any way In the clip they throw in some crappy comments that just burn my ass. you have to listen close though. you could miss it. Hoda Kotb said it. Ok, I just had to put this out there. So do you do so well. "so well"

 

[fitzbew88]

NBC, had a segment today that wants to know if you believe.
They showed some Phoenix lights, The New York lights, And they had Phillip imbrogno on. They also had a guy named James Oberg,
The NBC "space analyst"on saying these lights were just a bunch of planes fyling in formation trying to act like a ufo.

Are they running this segment again? Which show was it on?

Date line is doing a story on it Sunday at 7pm- 6 central time.

On the East Coast, Dateline NBC is airing a "Top Ten UFO encounters caught on tape" show at 7pm EASTERN time on Sunday May 18.

I heard/read some rumor about MSNBC running some kind've special this weekend --- I assume this Dateline broadcast must be it. Although it is on NBC not MSNBC-proper.

 

[bsvalley]

My bad, The today show. if you go to the web site they have the video clip.

 

[fitzbew88]

My bad, The today show. if you go to the web site they have the video clip.

And here's the link:

The Today Show UFO Story (Hudson Valley UFO)

 

[Graphimancer]

Well, as network tv goes, that was relatively balanced.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I believe NBC needs to turn into a porn channel. My 2 cents. After all, every time I turn them on, I see jackoffs...

 

[CapnG]

I believe NBC needs to turn into a porn channel. My 2 cents. After all, every time I turn them on, I see jackoffs...

Wouldn't that technically be the opposite of porn?

 

[exo_doc]

Who is this Robert Schaeffer(sp?) dude that was the skeptic for the show?
He seems to be a clone of the late Phillip Klass, I mean his explanations were just as unreasonable and brainless as Klass's.

And I shudder whenever I hear Phillip Klass's name. I can't imagine have such a "fixed" mentality as his. No amount of evidence would ever give him the slightest doubt that aliens did not exist. I saw him discussing the McMinville photos, and just like Schaeffer, he was convinced Mom and Pop hoaxed the whole thing with a hubcap or something and some string.
I'm sorry for Klass's family that he passed, but the world is a much better place without his insane explanations flat out denial of anything unexplained.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I believe NBC needs to turn into a porn channel. My 2 cents. After all, every time I turn them on, I see jackoffs...

Wouldn't that technically be the opposite of porn?

No. But granted I was drunk when I posted that remark, and now I'm groggy for just waking up.

 

[fitzbew88]

And I shudder whenever I hear Phillip Klass's name. I can't imagine have such a "fixed" mentality as his. No amount of evidence would ever give him the slightest doubt that aliens did not exist.

He was stubborn, that's for sure. Bruce Maccabee has him on the record, though, as stating that one case Dr. Maccabee had analyzed "... might prove to be the big breakthrough/Rosetta Stone that the UFO movement has for so very long hoped for." The plain truth was that the facts of the case simply defied any kind've conventional explanation --- and lots of facts were known, including photos.

This was the Flying Christmas Tree case (full analysis available on Dr. Maccabee's web site).

I saw him discussing the McMinville photos, and just like Schaeffer, he was convinced Mom and Pop hoaxed the whole thing with a hubcap or something and some string.

Well, I still like McMinville but there are some problems with it. For example, the time of day the photos were taken don't agree with *when* the witnesses say they took the photos. And a lot of the value of the case is based on the presumption that the photographer didn't have the capability to fake it --- especially taking into account the photos stereoscopic "validity". Don't get me wrong, I *like* the case, I'm just keeping my eyes open.

 

[derekcbart]

I just received this article in my email inbox: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21.html#feature

It is an article that gives a reasonable explanation of the "large triangular craft" that I hadn't heard before, but was apparently reported on at the time of the original event.

-Derek

 

[fitzbew88]

I just received this article in my email inbox: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21.html#feature

It is an article that gives a reasonable explanation of the "large triangular craft" that I hadn't heard before, but was apparently reported on at the time of the original event.

"...a young man with a 10-inch Dobsonian telescope, Mitch Stanley, spotted the vee from his backyard, and saw that it was a formation of airplanes. Using a magnification of 60X — which essentially put him 60 times closer to the vee than people only using their naked eyes — Stanley could see that each light in the sky was actually a double, with one light under each squarish wing. The planes still looked small in his scope — suggesting they were flying at high altitude — and he didn’t know what type they were. But there was no doubt, he told me, that they were planes."

The math doesn't work out for me. Such a telescope setup would only have about a 1 degree field of view (about twice the diameter of the full moon). Even if the formation was directly overhead, it would have to be at 25,000 feet to stay in the field of view for .7 seconds. If the formation was at 9,000 feet, it would only stay in the field of view for .25 (1/4) seconds.

And this is only if the formation *filled* the view; if it only encompassed a portion of it then we are talking about much higher altitudes. The higher the altitude, the less remarkable (any) lights are going to be from the ground.

Whatever this was, it gave an impression of size --- angular size. Certainly folks did not see something that fit into an angular size of 1 degree and translate that into something "huge".

"For the inexperienced: a Dobsonian telescope is much easier to move than the typical department store scope; it’s child’s play for an experienced observer like Stanley to get a good look at passing planes at altitude.)"

This is ridiculous. An Dobsonian astronomical telescope with a 1 degree field of view is virtually useless for manually tracking aircraft. The very best scenario is that a high-altitude formation flew through the field of view and Mitch got a glimpse of it. But there is no way he followed it in his telescope's viewfinder.

I don't think Mitch was looking at the same thing.

 

[Michael L.]

I am not very knowledgeable about telescopes (however, if someone could connect me to a source for good, relatively inexpensive non-computerized scopes for the beginner I am interested!) but I am pretty handy with a professional video camera on a tripod. I would not have the world's easiest time keeping a stable shot of anything moving while at a 60X and I actually have practiced such things as it is part of how I make my living! I would think that even an "easily moved" telescope is not going to be nearly responsive as one of my cameras on a tripod built for panning and tracking action... is that not a reasonable assumption? 60X is a huge mag factor for tracking a moving object. The magnifying effect means that the action occurs in a much smaller arc to you. As you put more distance between you and the subject, the angle you move to track their speed gets smaller and smaller. At 60X it is very easy to over-compensate and lose objects, even high speed aircraft.

 

[fitzbew88]

I would think that even an "easily moved" telescope is not going to be nearly responsive as one of my cameras on a tripod built for panning and tracking action... is that not a reasonable assumption?

It's not "responsive" at all; the user would need to manually track the "formation".

Keeping a formation of moving aircraft inside a 1 degree field of view for any appreciable length of time is virtually impossible.

Plus, keep in mind, that the eyepiece of a Dobsonian is at right angles to the axis of view; just *finding* the objects of interest would be difficult. (I'm ignoring the prospect of using an attached smaller finder-scope since Tony is very clear that the view was at 60x --- much too high for any useful finder-scope.)

The metrics of the explanation just don't jibe with the event.

 

[exo_doc]

I own a Celestron 8 inch Newtonian(which is exactly the same as a Dobsonian scope, just different mounts). It has a German equatorial mount with a clock drive and a digital readout giving me the right ascension and declination so when I line up the axis with the north, I can get in the general area of the object I am hunting for. (Yeah, it's old fashioned, there are many times I'd rather have a go-to mount but I was on a budget when I got it.)
I can turn off the locks that hold the scope steady and manually swing it, BUT when I do this, even when looking at the moon, I have to use the finder scope on the side, and even then it's a pain in the ass to find what I'm aiming for in the main scope eyepiece.
I have tried to track slow moving commercial jets, and the field of vision, even with a low power eyepiece, is just too narrow. At best I get a glimpse as it whizzes through the view, but only as a blurr, not even a "Hey that was a 767" glance.
If the "jets" were near the horizon, slow moving, and within a couple of miles, MAYBE I could track them, but I've never been in that position, so I couldn't really say.
But then to say..."easily track with a Dobsonian mount" is to display real ignorance in telescopes. Yeah, it moves freely enough, but you have to stop it long enough to look through-even finding what you're trying to point at. I have a serious issue with the kid and mom story because it's not practical or realistic with scope usage.