UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 10

McGaha Or Magoo

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:39:09 -0500
Archived: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:15:46 -0500
Subject: McGaha Or Magoo

There are none so blind as those who will not see... it has
been said.

I'm sure Penniston, in particular, was flabbergasted to have
McGaha tell him (on the Larry King show) that he misidentified a
lighthouse after Penniston has described walking around and even
touching a landed object of a definite shape and strange
lighting in the presence of about half a dozen other witnesses.

And Halt probably didn't know what to say to a guy who implied
that Halt couldn't tell the difference between stars or a
satellite rentry and laser beams coming out of an object and
termination on the ground only a few feet from his feet (maybe I
should have written, only a meter from his feet!). McGaha wanted
physical proof. Halt didn't point out that he had some guy make
plaster casts of the three depressions in the soil made by the
weight of the object on its legs. (I have seen one of these
casts.) But I suppose, if Halt had mentioned the depressions
McGaha would have recited the "rabbit hole" explanation proposed
many years ago.

In fact, McGaha was reciting numerous explanations that have
been proposed over the years. I will give him credit for one
thing: he said he actually went there to investigate himself, so
I applaud the person who puts his body where his mouth is, in a
manner of speaking! But I have a problem when evidence is
placed directly in front of a person who is willing to propose
'any' explanation, whether it fits the evidence of not.

Callahan knows his radar but he, unfortunately, is not the most
quallified defender of the JAL1628 case. The FAA will always
'get away with' repeating their 'solution' of 20 1/2 years ago,
announced on March 5, 1987, which was in two parts: Part the
First: stated that the ground radar detections were "split
images" (hardware/software temporary malfunctions) and Part the
Second: don't say anything about the visual sightings or the
airplane radar sighting.

As for McGaha claiming that Jupiter was the likely source of the
lights seen in front of the aircraft, he got the Klassic
explanation - by Philip J. Klass, skeptic/debunker
extraordinaire, who was McGaha's predecessor as the "skeptic of
choice" for the newsmedia - that was published by CSICOP (now
CSI - I wonder why) only partly correct.

The _complete_ explanation published by CSICOP in January 1987,
before the FAA publicized its findings, was that the two lights
that suddenly appeared in front of the aircraft and stayed there
for many minutes before disappearing were Jupiter _and_ Mars.
However, as I would have been quick to point out, having very
carefully studied this case, the pilot, co-pilot and flight
engineer saw these lights - actually two groupings as lights, as
in two objects with multiple sources of light - first one above
the other for a 3-5 minutes and then suddenly they reoriented
and were side by side for another 10 minutes before they
disappeared. Now this sudden 're-arrangement' would have been a
difficult maneuver for Mars and Jupiter to accomplish in such a
short time. I might also point out that Captain Terauchi
reported feeling "heat on my face" as soon as these objects
appeared. Few people (if any) have reported "heat on my face"
from Mars or Jupiter.

The postscript to this story is that, after I published my large
article on this case in the IUR that took up the whole journal
issue in June-July 1987, CSICOP published a second Klassic
explanation: this time it was moonlight on clouds.


Sorry if I treat this with less than full respect.

Maccabee's First Rule for Debunkers: Any explanation is better
than none, so, propose an explanation. (If one is bold and
proposes an explanation the press is likely to publish it and
thereby end the discussion. See, for example what happened to
the O'Hare Airport event a year ago (and 20 years after the
JAL1628 event): the FAA said" weather phenomena" and... well,
there you have it. The official explanation is "weather

How stupid do they think we are?

As for McGaha, to paraphrase great UFO guru Ed Ruppelt, the
harder you stick your head into the sand the more likely the UFO
problem it is to go away.

Scenario: Mr. Magoo is standing close to a sign that he is
looking at. His friend is standing nearby.

Magoo: Tell me what the sign says.

Friend: You're looking at it. Can't you read it?

Magoo: [sensitive to implied accusations that he can't see well
because of his shortsightedness] Of Course I Can Read It!! Now,
tell me what it says!!

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ 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